APPENDIX A: ERRATA

1. Page 63, Commercial Services, second paragraph. Replace the second sentence with the following text: “The number of vessels used in the operation, and arrival and departure patterns at Fort Jefferson, will be determined in the concession contracting process.”

Explanation: The number of vessels to be used by the ferry concessionaire, and appropriate arrival and departure patterns, will be determined during the concessions contracting process that will occur during implementation of the Final GMPA/EIS.

2. Page 64, Commercial Services, third paragraph. Change the last word of the fourth sentence from “six” to “twelve.”

Explanation: Group size for snorkeling and diving with commercial guides in the research natural area zone will be limited to 12 passengers, rather than 6 passengers.

3. Page 64, Commercial Services, sixth paragraph. Change the fourth sentence to read: “CUA permits will be issued to boat operators for 12-passenger multi-day diving trips.”

Explanation: Group size for guided multi-day diving trips by operators with Commercial Use Authorizations will be 12 passengers, rather than 6 passengers.

4. Page 40, Table 1. Ranges of Visitor Use At Specific Locations. Change the last sentence in the box on page 40 to read: “Group size for snorkeling and diving with commercial guides in waters in the research natural area shall be a maximum of 12 passengers, excluding the guide.”

Explanation: Clarifies that maximum group size for guided multi-day diving trips in the RNA by operators with Commercial Use Authorizations will be 12 passengers, rather than six passengers.

5. Page 84, Table 4: Summary of Alternative Actions. In the first row of the table, under the column for Alternative D, strike the text in the box and replace it with the following: “Same as alternative C except that all visits to destinations in the research natural area zone would be by guided tour only. Private boats would be allowed to transit the RNA without stopping, but would not be allowed to anchor or tie up to mooring buoys in this zone.”

Explanation: Clarifies that private boats would be allowed to transit the RNA without stopping.

6. Page 84, Table 4: Summary of Alternative Actions. In the 5th row of the table, under the column for Alternative D, strike the word “Yes” and insert the following text: “Private boaters must obtain a permit for recreational activities occurring inside the park but outside of the RNA.”

Explanation: Clarifies that private boaters would be required to obtain a permit for recreational activities such as snorkeling, diving and fishing that take place inside the park, but outside the RNA zone.

7. Page 479, Preparers and Consultants. Under Consultants add: “Jeffrey Marion, Adjunct Faculty Member; Unit Leader, Cooperative Park Studies Unit; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University” Final General Management Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Statement

Dry Tortugas National Park Monroe County, Florida

The purpose of this Final General Management Plan Amendment / Environmental Impact Statement for Dry Tortugas National Park in Monroe County, Florida, is to set forth the management philosophy and management direction for the park for the next 15 to 20 years. The park has been operating under the General Management Plan / Development Concept Plan / Environmental Assessment that was prepared in 1983. Although much of the 1983 plan is still applicable, this older plan does not address several current issues. The 1983 plan needs amending to provide overall guidance for the future use of resources and facili- ties; to clarify research and resource management needs, priorities, and strategies; and to address changing levels of park visitation and use. This new General Management Plan Amendment will replace the 1983 plan. Specific issues to be addressed in this amendment include protection of near-pristine resources such as coral reefs and sea grass beds, the protection of submerged cultural resources, the management direction for commercial services to provide transportation and assistance in educating visitors, and the determination of appropriate levels and types of visitor use. Establishing appropriate levels of visitor use is especially important. In 1984 the park had 18,000 visitors Last year more than 84,000 people visited the park. The first quarter visitation numbers of 2000 are 25% greater than last year. Managers must take actions to deal with visitor safety and enjoyment as well as protect the resources.

This Final General Management Plan Amendment presents and analyzes five alternative future directions for management and use of Dry Tortugas National Park and incorporates appropriate changes from the comments on the draft plan. Alternative A, a “no-action” alternative, presents what would happen under a continuation of existing conditions, without a new management plan, and provides a basis for comparing the other alternatives. Alternatives B, C, D, and E (the “action alternatives”) considered in this document provide different ways to meet current and future needs, protect park resources, and enhance visitor experience. Alternative B provides greater protection of natural and cultural resources than alternative A. Alternative C, which has been identified as the National Park Service’s proposed action/preferred future direction, affords a high level of protection to significant park resources through selectively applying a research natural area zone, instituting a permit system for private boaters, and using commercial services to direct and structure visitor use. Alternative D is the same as alternative C except that the research natural area zone is larger and private boaters would not be allowed in this zone. Alternative E is the same as alternative D except that the research natural area zone would be applied to almost the entire park. The potential consequences and environmental impacts associated with implementing each of the alternatives are evaluated in the “Environmental Consequences” section of this document.

Concurrent with the completion of the General Management Plan Amendment, the National Park Service will issue a “Notice of Proposed Rule Making.” This will initiate the process of establishing new or revised regulations that are directed by the final plan. Public comments received on the Draft General Management Plan Amendment that address topics that will be the subject of rulemaking will also apply to public review of the draft regulations when they are released for public comment.

This Final General Management Plan Amendment has been distributed to other agencies and interested individuals. After at least a 30-day no-action period, a “Record of Decision” on the final approved management plan will be issued by the NPS regional director. For further information, contact Superintendent, Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks, 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, FL 33034-6733.

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

iii SUMMARY

The Florida Keys are composed of 1,700 and is closed during the nesting/hatching keys or islands, all of which are in Monroe period. It contains relatively unaltered County. Dry Tortugas National Park is the natural vegetation. westernmost part of the Florida Keys and is about 70 miles west of Key West, Florida, in The Dry Tortugas are recognized for their the Straits of Florida. The park contains near-pristine natural resources including sea seven keys and is administered by the grass beds, fisheries, and sea turtle and bird National Park Service. Only two of the keys nesting habitat. In addition, the tropical coral in the 100-square-mile national park are reef of the Tortugas is one of the best inhabited. The keys are composed of coral developed on the continent and possesses a reefs and sand and the surrounding shoals full range of Caribbean coral species, some and water. Totaling 104 acres, the islands in of which are rare elsewhere. These resources the park are situated on the edge of the main play a vital role in South Florida’s efforts to shipping channel between the Gulf of attain a balanced and sustainable ecosystem. Mexico, the western Caribbean, and the For example, the park’s protected spawning Atlantic Ocean. The islands and reefs pose a habitat produces larger apex predators serious navigation hazard to ships passing (predators at the top of the food chain) and through the 75-mile-wide straits between the rich biodiversity of species such as reef fish, gulf and the ocean and have been the site of lobster, and shrimp. Movement and flow of hundreds of shipwrecks, which still currents in the keys disperse larva to distant occasionally occur in the area. The areas, resulting in benefits to regional shipwrecks on the reefs comprise one of the fisheries and therefore to recreational and nation’s principal ship graveyards. commercial fishermen and research scientists beyond the park. Fort Jefferson, on Garden Key, is the park’s central cultural feature and is the largest 19th Every unit in the national park system is century American coastal fort. Construction required to operate under a management began on the structure in 1846, but the fort plan that sets the direction for future was never completed. Originally built to management of each specific unit. Dry protect shipping access to the gulf, the fort Tortugas National Park has been operating was used as a military prison during the under the 1983 General Management Plan / Civil War. Today, the fort is the primary Development Concept Plan / Environmental destination for people visiting the park. Assessment (NPS 1983b). Although much of Loggerhead Key is the largest key and the 1983 plan still applies, it needs amend- contains a brick tower lighthouse that was ing to address current issues; to provide completed in 1858 that is still operable. The overall guidance for the future use of lighthouse was manned by Coast Guard resources and facilities; to clarify research personnel until recently when it was turned and resource management needs, priorities, over to the National Park Service. The and strategies; and to address changing remaining keys are Bush, Long, East, levels of park visitation and use. This new Hospital, and Middle. Because they are General Management Plan Amendment will turtle and bird nesting sites, Hospital and replace the 1983 plan. Long Keys are closed to visitors all year; Bush Key is closed part of the year during Specific issues to be addressed in this bird nesting season. Middle Key is a sandbar amendment include protection of near- that is awash in the summer but emerges pristine resources such as coral reefs and sea intermittently at other times of the year. East grass beds, the protection of submerged Key is also a significant turtle nesting area, cultural resources, the management direction

v SUMMARY of commercial services to provide transpor- area. A wide range of recreational and tation and assistance in educating visitors, educational opportunities would be available and the determination of appropriate levels to visitors provided that appropriate resource and types of visitor use. Visitation at the conditions were maintained. Visitor experi- park has risen from 18,000 visitors in 1984 ence would be enhanced due to expanded to 84,000 in 2000. The first quarter visita- access throughout the park and higher- tion numbers of 2000 are already 25% quality resources to enjoy. The goal for greater than last year. commercial service operations would be to be self-contained, thus reducing the strain on Five alternative future directions for man- the limited park facilities. The types and agement and use of Dry Tortugas National levels of visitor use would be managed to Park are analyzed in this plan. Alternative protect resources and the quality of the A, a “no-action” alternative, presents what visitor experiences. would happen under a continuation of existing conditions, without an amended The concept under alternative D is exactly management plan, and provides a basis for the same as alternative C except that (1) the comparing the other alternatives. Alterna- research natural area zone boundaries would tives B, C, D, and E (the “action alterna- be slightly different (still compatible with tives”) considered in this document provide the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctu- different ways to meet current and future ary’s preferred alternative for establishing needs, protect park resources, and enhance ecological reserves in the Tortugas area), visitor experience. and (2) private boaters would not be allowed to anchor or tie up to a mooring buoy for Alternative B provides greater protection of diving, snorkeling, etc. in the research the natural and cultural resources than natural area. Private boaters would be alternative A. Under alternative B the types allowed to transit through the research and levels of visitor use would be managed natural area. to protect resources and the quality of the visitor experiences. Where critical resource Under alternative E, most of the park would degradation was observed, park staff would be designated as a research natural area and direct intensive protection and/or remedia- managed accordingly, with primary empha- tion measures to abate impacts. Visitors sis on resource protection and conservation. would be free to travel and experience a The alternative recognizes the paramount variety of recreational opportunities importance of preserving the park’s near- throughout much of the park. pristine and fragile ecological resources and takes steps to closely direct visitor activities Alternative C has been identified as the that could result in resource degradation. National Park Service’s proposed action/ Most visitor use would be highly structured preferred future direction. The intent under through commercial service providers. The alternative C is to afford a high level of pro- goal for commercial service operations tection to significant park resources through would be to be self-contained, thus reducing the selective application of a research the strain on the limited park facilities. natural area zone in 46% of the park (46 Private boaters would moor at Garden Key square miles), instituting a permit system for and join tour operations. The types and private boaters, and using commercial levels of visitor use would be managed to services to direct and structure visitor use. protect resources and the quality of the The research natural area would be dedica- visitor experiences. ted to resource protection, nonmanipulative research, and visitor education. Consump- The potential consequences and environ- tive use of resources, including fishing, mental impacts associated with imple- would be prohibited in the research natural menting each of the alternatives are

vi Summary evaluated in the “Environmental Conse- Sanctuary would set aside a total of about quences” section of this document. The 197 square nautical miles where fishing major impacts of implementing alternative would not be allowed and the fisheries and A include continued long-term impacts on other benthic resources could recover from coral reefs and reef fisheries from overfishing. When implemented, the unrestricted fishing and recreational uses. combined NPS and FKNMS proposals Also, increases in use would result in minor would establish the third largest no-take to moderate long-term adverse impacts on marine reserve in the world (according to the quality of the visitor experience. the National Fisheries Conservation Center).

The major impacts of implementing alter- The major impacts of implementing alter- native B would include continued long-term native E would include the elimination of adverse impacts on coral reefs and reef almost all of the long-term adverse impacts fisheries from unrestricted fishing and from fishing and recreational uses through recreational uses. Establishing maximum the establishment of a research natural area levels, types, and locations of use would throughout most of the park. Visitor use have long-term minor beneficial impacts on would be highly structured throughout the the quality of the visitor experience. park. Visitors without private boats would have greater opportunities to tour diverse The major impacts of implementing alter- areas in the park. Establishing visitor capaci- natives C and D would include a significant ties, providing commercial tours, improving reduction in the long-term adverse impacts and protecting the quality of the resources, from fishing and recreational uses through and enhancing interpretation and education the establishment of a research natural area would have long-term major beneficial in a portion of the park. Establishing visitor impacts on the quality of the visitor capacities, providing commercial tours experience. The restriction against private throughout the park, improving and protect- boat use and recreational fishing in most of ing the quality of the resources, and the park, and the requirement that these enhancing interpretation and education visitors be with a guide, would change the would have long-term major beneficial nature of the remote marine experience and impacts on the quality of the visitor experi- sense of freedom now available. This would ence. In alternative C, the establishment of have long-term moderate negative impacts the research natural area in the park and the for those visitors with private boats. establishment of the adjacent ecological reserve by the Florida Keys National Marine

vii UNDERSTANDING PARK PLANNING

The purpose of these two pages is to explain (1) Clarify and articulatewhat must be what you are going to be reading about in achieved in the park — These require- this document and why. ments are based on the park’s purpose, significance, special mandates, agree- Park planning is a decision-making ments, and the body of laws and policies process, and general management planning directing the management of the is the broadest level of decision making for national park system. parks. General management plans are Park management is directed by law, required for all units in the national park policy, and plans — in that order. system and are intended to set the manage- Law and policy deal with musts — ment direction for the park for the next 15 to things that must happen in the park 20 years. General management planning because they have been mandated by constitutes the first phase of tiered planning Congress or the NPS leadership. Park and decision making. It focuses on why the managers and staffs do not make park was established (purpose, significance, decisions about laws and policies; mission) and what resource conditions and they simply implement them. visitor experiences should be achieved and maintained over time (desired conditions). (2) Make decisions about the most appropri- The general management plan looks years ate mix of desired conditions that have into the future when dealing with the frame- been identified for a park — These work of natural and cultural processes, desired conditions may be identified by considering the park holistically in its full the park staff, technical experts, current ecological and cultural context and as part of and potential visitors, other agencies, a surrounding region. Site-specific planning traditional users, regional/area residents, will be done in later implementation plans. and the general public. Laws and policies as well as the There are two broad purposes for a general park’s purpose, significance, and management plan: mission are the sideboards for deter- mining which of the suggested § Clearly describe the desired conditions, desired conditions can be legitimately the specific resource conditions and considered. visitor experiences to be achieved in a park, and identify the kinds of manage- Planning provides the process for ment, use, and development that will be choosing among the desired condi- appropriate in achieving and maintain- tions. The desired conditions are ing those conditions. grouped appropriately by concept and § Ensure that this basic foundation for expressed as different alternatives. In decision making has been developed in other words, various approaches to consultation with interested stakeholders protecting the park’s resources and and adopted by the National Park allowing visitor use and development Service (NPS) leadership after an may be possible. These different adequate analysis of the benefits, approaches are called the alternatives, environmental impacts, and economic and the alternatives are described by costs of alternative courses of action. establishing management zones that tell what specific conditions and A general management plan needs to do visitor experiences will be achieved two things: and maintained in each particular area of the park over time. The size and

viii Understanding Park Planning

placement of the different manage- would be appropriate for different parks.) In ment zones usually varies in each the historic preservation / adaptive use zone alternative. Determining the best mix we might develop many structured activities of desired conditions (i.e., the best and opportunities for many visitors alternative) is the point of the general (primarily those on tours) to learn about the management planning process, and park and its resources while carefully decisions are based on scientific and protecting any historic structures (such as academic resource analysis, a rigor- the fort). Visitors would only be allowed in ous evaluation of the natural, cultural, the research natural area management zone and social impacts of alternative with a permit. This would help ensure the courses of action, and consideration protection of the park’s near-pristine of long-term economic costs. resources in that management zone. In the first alternative concept (double the visitors The example below is meant to simply allowed), the historic preservation / adaptive illustrate how all that bureacratese is really use zone might encompass Garden Key/Fort applied. For the example below, we are Jefferson and Loggerhead Key, and the assuming that our desired conditions are in research natural area might encompass 20 line with laws, policies, park purpose, square miles of the most representative of significance, etc. the park’s near-pristine resources. In the second alternative concept above (no one Some people might want to double the but researchers), there would be no need for number of people allowed out to Dry a historic preservation/ adaptive use zone Tortugas National Park so that more people and the research natural area zone might could learn about and enjoy the park and its encompass the entire park. Although the resources (a concept/ desired condition for reader will find the management zone one alternative). Others might want to limit descriptions and alternative action the number of people that go to the park to descriptions in this document to be more researchers only so that the park’s resources complex, this is the basic idea of general would always remain in near-pristine management planning. conditions (a concept/desired condition for a second alternative). Many other concepts are The other “piece” that needs to be added is possible. Once concepts are formed, then an analysis of the environmental conse- decision makers (which includes the quences (impacts) of implementing each of interested public) decide what actions would the alternatives — including impacts on the have to take place in the park to support this natural and cultural resources (will the fort concept. They do that by establishing and the coral beds and birds be protected?), management zones that describe what impacts on park visitors (can visitors still specific conditions and visitor experiences fish, snorkel, and dive to shipwreck sites?), would be achieved and maintained in each and impacts on the socioeconomic environ- particular area of the park over time. As ment (can commercial charter boats still take shown below, the size and placement of the people to fish, will the ferry to the park still management zones would vary with each run, and what will the park be like in 20 alternative concept. years?). These and other important questions and their answers are what general manage- Suppose, for example, we have a historic ment planning is all about. The method may preservation/adaptive use management zone seem a bit complex, but the goal is simple and a research natural area zone (among — while considering park visitors and park others) that the planning team, park resources, what is the best way to manage managers, the public, and others have the park for the next 15 to 20 years. developed as appropriate for Dry Tortugas National Park. (Different management zones

ix CONTENTS

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT 5 Brief Description of the Park 5 Park Purpose 9 Park Significance 9 Park Mission Goals 9 Collective Mission and Mission Goals of the NPS South Florida Units 11 Issues and Concerns 11 Issues Beyond the Scope of this Plan 13 SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES AND SPECIAL PARK MANDATES AND AGREEMENTS 14 Park Mandates and Agreements 14 Servicewide Laws and Policies 15 IMPACT TOPICS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION 23 Climate 23 Air Quality 23 Soils 24 Prime and Unique Farmlands 24 RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 25 U.S. Coral Reef Task Force –- The National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs 25 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary — Draft Tortugas Ecological Reserve Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement / Draft Management Plan 25 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council — Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan 25 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force — Strategic Plan 26 National Park Service — Coordinated South Florida Framework 26 State and Local Plans 27 RULEMAKING 28

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES 31 BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPING THE MANAGEMENT ZONES 33 Introduction 33 Background on Research Natural Areas 34 MANAGEMENT ZONES 36 Historic Preservation/Adaptive Use Zone 36 Natural/Cultural Zone 37 Research Natural Area Zone 37 Special Protection Zone 38 Managing for Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) 39 Monitoring to Maintain Visitor Experience and Resource Protection 41 PARKWIDE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 43 ALTERNATIVE A: CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 48 Overall Concept 48 Management Zoning 48 Visitor Experience 48 Resource Protection 51 Commercial Services 51 Park Operations and Facilities 52

xi CONTENTS

ALTERNATIVE B 53 Overall Concept 53 Management Zoning 53 Visitor Experience 53 Resource Protection 54 Commercial Services 57 Park Operations and Facilities 57 Park Entrance Fee 57 ALTERNATIVE C: PROPOSED ACTION 58 Overall Concept 58 Management Zoning 58 Visitor Experience 61 Resource Protection 62 Commercial Services 63 Park Operationsand Facilities 65 Park Entrance Fee 65 ALTERNATIVE D 66 Overall Concept 66 Management Zoning 66 Visitor Experience 69 Resource Protection 70 Commercial Services 71 Park Operations and Facilities 73 Park Entrance Fee 73 ALTERNATIVE E 74 Overall Concept 74 Management Zoning 74 Visitor Experience 74 Resource Protection 77 Commercial Services 78 Park Operations and Facilities 78 Park Entrance Fee 79 MITIGATION MEASURES 80 Cultural Resources 80 Marine Life and Wildlife 80 Traffic 80 Visitor Experience 80 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND PLANNING 96 ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY 97

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL RESOURCES 101 Essential and Unique Habitats 101 Fishery Resources 111 Wildlife Resources 113 Environmental Setting 114 Resource Monitoring 115 CULTURAL RESOURCES 116 Prehistoric Archeology 116 Shipwrecks 116 Fort Jefferson 118 Loggerhead Key 119 VISITOR EXPERIENCE 121

xii Contents

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 123 Population and Income 123 Tourism and Recreation 123 Economy 126 Commercial Services 128 LAND USE 130 PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 131 Park Operations 131 Facilities 134

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION 139 IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 140 Introduction 140 Methodology 141 Alternative A 141 Alternative B 147 Alternative C 148 Alternative D 158 Alternative E 160 Summary and Conclusion 162 IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 164 Methodology 164 Regulations and Policies 164 Alternative A (No Action) 165 Alternative B 166 Alternative C 167 Alternative D 169 Alternative E 171 IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE 173 Methodology 173 Alternative A 174 Alternative B 176 Alternative C 177 Alternative D 180 Alternative E 183 IMPACTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 186 Methodology 186 Alternative A 186 Alternative B 188 Alternative C 189 Alternative D 191 Alternative E 192 IMPACTS ON LAND USE 194 IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 195 Methodology 195 Alternative A 195 Alternative B 197 Alternative C 198 Alternative D 199 Alternative E 201

xiii CONTENTS

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 203 Alternative A 203 Alternative B 203 Alternative C 203 Alternative D 204 Alternative E 204 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 206 Alternative A 206 Alternative B 206 Alternative C 206 Alternative D 207 Alternative E 208 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 209 Alternative A 209 Alternative B 209 Alternative C 209 Alternative D 209 Alternative E 210 IMPACTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 211 Alternative A 211 Alternative B 211 Alternative C 211 Alternative D 211 Alternative E 212 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY 213

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 217 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 222

APPENDIXES, SELECTED REFERENCES, PREPARERS, AND INDEX

APPENDIX A: PARK’S ENABLING LEGISLATION, PUBLIC LAW 102-525 423 APPENDIX B: COLLECTIVE MISSION AND MISSION GOALS OF THE NPS SOUTH FLORIDA UNITS 425 APPENDIX C EXECUTIVE ORDERS 13089 “CORAL REEF PROTECTION” AND 13158 “MARINE PROTECTED AREAS “ 428 APPENDIX D: MORE DETAILS ON THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES 435 APPENDIX E: RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE C AS THE PARK SERVICE’S PROPOSED ACTION 436 APPENDIX F: DETAILS OF NATURAL RESOURCE DATA GATHERED AND PROJECTED 452 APPENDIX G: LETTERS FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ON RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 455 APPENDIX H: SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES STRATEGY 466 APPENDIX I: METHODS FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 470

SELECTED REFERENCES 474

PREPARERS 479

INDEX 480

xiv Contents

MAPS

Location 3 Park 7 Alternative A 49 Alternative B 55 Alternative C 59 Alternative D 67 Alternative E 75

TABLES

Table 1. Ranges of Visitor Use at Specific Locations 40 Table 2. Parkwide Management Actions, All Alternatives 43 Table 3. Summary of Parkwide Management Actions 81 Table 4: Summary of Alternative Actions 83 Table 5. Summary of Impacts 86 Table 6: Average Trip Expenditures Per Person 127 Table 7. CUA Permits Issued for the 1999 Season 128 Table 8: Cultural Resource Compliance with Section 219 Table 9. List of Commentors and Codes 224 Table 10. Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan 227

FIGURES

A1. List of stony coral, gorgonian, and sponge species sampled in the Florida Keys coral reef tract by NURC divers, 1998–99. 103 B1. Spatial distribution of coral reef, hardbottom, and sea grass habitats in the Dry Tortugas region. 105 B2. Distribution of benthic habitats within the park boundaries. 107 B3 Best Representation of Community Types: Proposed Action 109 A3. List of families and species of fishes observed in visual samples from the Florida Keys. 112 B13. Overall AHP model scores for five management alternatives. 149 B7. Results of the 20-year spatial simulations of the efficacy of the various management alternatives for all grouper species. 151 B9. Results of the 20-year spatial simulations of the efficacy of the various management alternatives for all snapper species. 153 B11. Results of the 20-year spatial simulations of the efficacy of the various management alternatives for all grunt species. 155

xv PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Back of map

4 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT

General management plans are required for visitor safety and enjoyment as well as each unit of the national park system. These protect the resources (see “Issues and plans provide a clearly defined direction for Concerns” section). visitor use and resource preservation and provide a basic foundation for decision This General Management Plan Amendment making and managing the park unit for the presents and analyzes five alternative future foreseeable future. directions for management and use of Dry Tortugas National Park (the park or Dry The purpose of this Final General Manage- Tortugas). Alternative A, a “no-action” ment Plan Amendment / Environmental alternative, presents what would happen Impact Statement for Dry Tortugas National under a continuation of existing conditions, Park is to set forth the management without a new management plan, and philosophy and framework for decision provides a basis for comparing the other making and problem solving in the park for alternatives. Alternatives B, C, D, and E (the the next 15 to 20 years. The park has been “action alternatives”) considered in this operating under the General Management document provide different ways to meet Plan / Development Concept Plan / current and future needs, protect park Environmental Assessment that was pre- resources, and enhance visitor experience. pared in 1983 (for Fort Jefferson National Alternative C has been identified as the Monument) before the site was designated National Park Service’s proposed action / as a national park in 1992. Although much preferred future direction. The potential of the 1983 plan is still applicable, NPS consequences and environmental impacts planning guidance has changed and this associated with implementing each of the older plan does not address current issues. alternatives are evaluated in the “Environ- The older plan needs amending to provide mental Consequences” section of this overall guidance for the future use of document. resources and facilities; to clarify research and resource management needs, priorities, Visitation to the park has traditionally relied and strategies; and to address changing on and would continue to rely on commer- levels of park visitation and use. This new cial transportation providers under any of General Management Plan Amendment will the alternatives discussed in this document. replace the 1983 plan. For that reason, this plan addresses ways for commercial services to help provide for Specific issues to be addressed in this visitor experiences in each alternative. The amendment include protection of near- impacts on commercial operators are ana- pristine resources such as coral reefs and sea lyzed in the “Environmental Consequences” grass beds, the protection of submerged section of this document. A subsequent cultural resources, the management direction concessions contract prospectus will follow of commercial services to provide transpor- this General Management Plan Amendment/ tation and assistance in educating visitors, Environmental Impact Statement to outline and the determination of appropriate levels specific operations and equipment needed to and types of visitor use. In 1984 the park implement the selected alternative. had 18,000 visitors Establishing appropriate levels of visitor use is especially important. Last year more than 84,000 people visited BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK the park. The first quarter visitation numbers of 2000 are 25% greater than last year. Established in 1992 (Public Law 102-525, Managers must take actions to deal with Title II, Oct. 26, 1992), Dry Tortugas

5 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

National Park is in Monroe County, Florida, The remaining keys are Bush, Long, East, 70 miles west of Key West in the Straits of Hospital, and Middle. Because they are Florida. The park’s approximate 100-square- turtle and bird nesting sites, Hospital and mile jurisdiction includes seven small keys Long Keys are closed to visitors all year; (islands) composed of coral reefs and sand Bush Key is closed part of the year during and the surrounding shoals and water. bird nesting season. Middle Key is a sandbar Totaling 104 acres, the islands are known as that is awash in the summer but emerges the Dry Tortugas and are situated on the intermittently at other times of the year. East edge of the main shipping channel between Key is also a significant turtle nesting area, the Gulf of Mexico, the western Caribbean, and is closed during the nesting/hatching and the Atlantic Ocean. The islands and period. It contains relatively unaltered reefs pose a serious navigation hazard to natural vegetation. ships passing through the 75-mile-wide straits between the gulf and the ocean and The Dry Tortugas are recognized for their have been the site of hundreds of ship- near-pristine natural resources including sea wrecks. The earliest known shipwreck grass beds, fisheries, and sea turtle and bird occurred in 1622, and marine casualties, nesting habitat. Pristine, for the purposes of wrecks, and strandings still occur in the this document, means in an unaltered natural area. The shipwrecks on the reefs comprise condition, and near-pristine means in an one of the nation’s principal ship unaltered natural condition but having minor graveyards. effects from current levels of recreational use and broader environmental influences. Fort Jefferson, on Garden Key, is the park’s In addition, the tropical coral reef of the central cultural feature and is the largest 19th Tortugas is one of the best developed and century American coastal fort. Construction most pristine on the continent and possesses began on the structure in 1846 but was never a full range of Caribbean coral species, some completed. Originally built to protect ship- of which are rare elsewhere. These resources ping access to the gulf, the fort was used as play a vital role in South Florida’s efforts to a military prison during the Civil War, attain a balanced and sustainable ecosystem. housing Union deserters and four Lincoln For example, the park’s protected spawning assassination conspirators. Today, the fort is habitat produces larger apex predators the primary destination site for people (predators at the top of the food chain) and visiting the park. rich biodiversity of species such as reef fish, lobster, and shrimp. Movement and flow of Loggerhead Key is the largest key and con- currents in the keys disperse larva to distant tains a brick tower lighthouse that is still areas, resulting in benefits to the region’s operable. The lighthouse is the most promi- fisheries and therefore to recreational and nent historic structure on that key. Com- commercial fishermen beyond the park, as pleted in 1858, the 150-foot tower provides well as to research scientists. warning of the Tortugas’ dangerous reefs. The lighthouse was manned by Coast Guard The primary means of access to the park are personnel until recently, when it was turned by commercial boat (tours) or seaplane or over to the National Park Service. Also on private boat. Visitors come to the area for Loggerhead Key are the ruins of the world’s recreational opportunities including touring first marine biological laboratory in the Fort Jefferson, snorkeling, scuba diving, Western Hemisphere — the Carnegie birdwatching, boating, and recreational Institution of Washington, D.C., Marine fishing. Biology Laboratory.

6

Back of map

8 Purpose of and Need for the Amendment

PARK PURPOSE Dry Tortugas National Park is a significant unit in the national park system because it The reason(s) for which the park was established provides the most funda- · contains historic Fort Jefferson, a mental criterion for determining militarily and architecturally significant actions proposed in the general 19th century fort management plan. · protects the historic Loggerhead Key lighthouse and the historic Garden Key Dry Tortugas National Park was established harbor light to “preserve and protect for the education, · possesses one of the greatest inspiration, and enjoyment of present and concentrations of historically significant future generations nationally significant shipwrecks in North America, with natural, historic, scenic, marine, and scien- some dating back to the 1600s tific values in South Florida.” The new park · maintains one of the most isolated and supplanted its smaller predecessor, Fort least disturbed habitats for endangered Jefferson National Monument (established and threatened sea turtles in the United in 1935). The following management States purposes were identified in the enabling · supports the only significant sooty and legislation (see appendix A for the complete noddy tern nesting colonies in the text of the legislation): United States (on Bush and Long Keys) and harbors the only frigate bird nesting · Protect and interpret a pristine sub- colonies in the continental United States tropical marine ecosystem, including an (on Long Key) intact coral reef community. · serves as an important resting spot for · Protect populations of fish and wildlife, migrating birds including loggerhead and green sea · provides unique opportunities to see turtles, sooty terns, frigate birds, and tropical seabirds numerous migratory bird species. · protects the least disturbed portion of · Protect the pristine natural environment the Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem of the Dry Tortugas group of islands. · presents outstanding potential for · Protect, stabilize, restore, and interpret education, recreation, and scientific Fort Jefferson, an outstanding example th research related to the park’s of 19 century masonry fortification. exceptional marine resources · Preserve and protect submerged cultural · offers a sense of quiet remoteness and resources. peace in a vast expanse of sea and sky · In a manner consistent with the · affords an opportunity to understand and paragraphs above, provide opportunities appreciate a rare combination of natural, for scientific research. historic, marine, and scenic resources

PARK SIGNIFICANCE PARK MISSION GOALS

The following statements define the Given the purpose and significance, significant attributes that relate to the goals were developed to provide park purpose and why the park was guidance in preserving and protecting established. Knowing the park’s what is significant and communi- significance helps managers set cating the primary themes to the protection priorities and determine visitors. desirable visitor experiences.

9 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

These are immediate and long-term goals — The physical oceanography (cur- what actions would have taken place over rents, tides, and winds) in the area the life of this plan amendment (15–20 is understood and is used to man- years) — to fulfill resource protection, age remote sources of pollutants. visitor use, and operational mandates. The park is internationally recog- All submerged and land-based cultural nized as a center for marine resources have been identified, research. documented, protected, and/or stabilized. The type and level of public use All terrestrial archeological does not negatively impact natural resources have been identified, resources. documented, evaluated, and protected. Human-caused physical damage to reefs and sea grass meadows is All submerged cultural resources eliminated, and natural popula- in 30 feet or less of water have tions of fish and marine life are been identified, documented, maintained. evaluated, and protected. Management decisions are based One example of each type of on sufficient data, and park poli- armament and the hot shot oven at cies support and enhance the sur- Fort Jefferson has been restored. vival of threatened and endangered species. All periods of Dry Tortugas history have been researched and Visitors understand, appreciate, and are documented. inspired by the park’s historical and natural resources, and they support the All historic structures at Dry protection of these resources. Tortugas, including Fort Jefferson and the Loggerhead Key Dry Tortugas provides only mini- lighthouse, have been stabilized. mal onsite visitor services and facilities and requires park visitors The type and level of public use to be self-sufficient for all their does not negatively impact cultural supplies. resources. The quality of the visitor experi- All natural resources and associated ence is protected by sustaining the values are protected, restored, and park’s peaceful and remote maintained in near-pristine condition. character.

Habitats impacted by humans are All visitors and affiliated political restored, and the natural environ- entities and interest groups under- ment is suitable for use by sea stand why the park was estab- turtles and migrating birds. lished and work cooperatively to achieve its purpose and mission. Native plants and animals are not impaired by invasive, exotic Commercial operators are aware plants. of park purpose and convey that to their customers.

10 Purpose of and Need for the Amendment

Available park facilities, infra- COLLECTIVE MISSION AND structure, and services are suf- MISSION GOALS OF THE NPS SOUTH ficient to support operational FLORIDA UNITS needs, park staff, and visitors; appropriate recreational oppor- Collectively, the South Florida parks face tunities are safe and adequate for similar challenges and demands. They visitors and employees. confront related environmental threats and impacts from urban growth. They share Facilities and infrastructure are common publics and visitor needs, and they sufficient to support park maintain relationships with many of the operations and visitor needs, in same public and private entities throughout conformance with state and federal South Florida. They preserve the most intact laws and the park purpose. portions of the South Florida ecosystem and play vital roles in sustaining the health of “Interpretation” is an educational that system. Because the parks have so much activity that is designed to stimulate in common, it is imperative that they coordi- curiosity, convey messages to the nate the management strategies, crossing visiting public, and help the public unit and agency boundaries in ways that understand, enjoy, appreciate, and serve the ecosystem’s overall needs. protect the resources. The orientation aspect of interpretation is telling To meet these challenges, the four parks visitors where the visitor center is, have identified a common mission and a what there is to see, how to get there, series of mission goals (see appendix B). and where the restrooms are. But more The mission reflects the collective purpose, important is determining what visitors significance, and special mandates of the should learn about the park — the National Park Service in South Florida. The interpretive themes — and how they mission goals identify what the parks would best learn that information — envision as desired future conditions. Both through media such as an audiovisual the mission and the mission goals conform program, a wayside exhibit (an outside to the NPS Strategic Plan. The collective interpretive panel), a self-guiding mission goals, however, have been redefined brochure, a guided tour, or some other so that they fit the needs of the South means. When determined, this is called Florida parks. the interpretive program for the park.

Dry Tortugas National Park is a ISSUES AND CONCERNS responsive and efficient organization, enhancing managerial capabilities The public, park staff, and planning team through initiatives and support from members (the team of people responsible for other agencies, organizations, and preparing this plan) identified a number of individuals. issues facing Dry Tortugas National Park. The issues and concerns generally involve Title to Loggerhead Key and determining the appropriate visitor capacity, submerged lands within the park types and levels of facilities, services, and boundary are transferred to the park, activities while remaining compatible with in accordance with the park’s desired resource conditions. The general enabling legislation. management plan amendment will provide a framework or strategy for addressing the Cooperative relationships are following issues within the context of the developed to assist in and carry out park’s purpose, significance, and mission the park purpose. goals.

11 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

· Visitation at Dry Tortugas National Park from divers, snorkelers, and the use of has risen from 18,000 visitors in 1984 to anchors. In addition, the potential exists 84,000 visitors in 1999. The first quarter for the loss of historic fabric at Fort Jef- visitation numbers of 2000 are 25% ferson and artifacts at shipwreck sites. greater than last year. Increased popu- As visitation increases, resource values larity of the park strains facilities, could be compromised even more. compromises visitor safety and quality Lacking strategies to balance location of visitor experience, and threatens and density of visitor activities will resources. The number of visitors and make it difficult for the park to protect, types and levels of activities lack restore, and maintain resource balance against the needs of vegetation, conditions. wildlife and aquatic life, historic struc- tures, and their environments. There are · Dry Tortugas National Park contains concerns that the trend in increased many natural and cultural resources visitation will destroy the very resource across a vast expanse of sea. Transporta- qualities that make the area special. tion to and within the park allows visitors limited access to park resources, · Research indicates that recreational which minimally achieves the park goals fishing, especially for trophy fish, is of educating visitors and providing a having a significant detrimental impact quality experience. Without a vessel, on the fisheries in the entire region. The those resources are relatively inacces- contribution of these largest fish to sible to most visitors. Commercial ser- production in the Tortugas region is vices support a variety of visitor activi- essential to the marine-based ecology ties, including sailing; transportation by and economy. boats, ferries, and air taxis; and guided history tours and tours for photography, · There has been a steady increase of wildlife watching, snorkeling, diving, interest by the commercial sector during and fishing. Although activities are the past few years to operate in the park. appropriate for private individuals to Interest has been expressed for much enjoy, it is equally appropriate to offer larger vessels, which would bring many these activities for visitors through the more visitors into the park. Park man- commercial sector. agers were concerned that the fragile resources in the park might suffer as a However, the current park management result of the increases being contempla- framework lacks critical tools for ted. This resulted in a moratorium being initiating, continuing, modifying, or placed on new commercial activity in eliminating commercial services at the park until this planning effort was specified locations. Many public completed. Park managers need the commentors acknowledge the value of direction from this plan to efficiently commercial services but express con- and effectively manage appropriate cern that irreparable damage to the types and levels of commercial services park’s sensitive cultural and natural at Dry Tortugas National Park. resources could result from overuse unless visitation levels and types of · Although many of the park’s resources activities and their locations are maintain high levels of integrity and balanced with resource preservation. near-pristine conditions, some resources such as coral reefs and sea grass mead- · Most visitors come between March and ows are being degraded by pollution July. Visitors seeking quiet and solitude from outside the park and by damage during this time complain that these experiences are not available due to

12 Purpose of and Need for the Amendment

overcrowding and overuse. A continued undiscovered significant resources in the increase in visitation numbers will likely park, impacts affecting resources, and degrade the experience even more for management strategies needed to some visitors. With more users, noise maintain and protect the resources. levels would likely increase, and there would be more competition for services · The National Park Service is increasing- and facilities and increased safety con- ly aware of the need to develop a cerns. The management tools currently mutually beneficial working relationship in use do not limit the numbers of that extends beyond park boundaries. visitors or disperse visitors to maintain a This need holds true in working with safe and high-quality experience during various entities including other govern- peak visitation periods. ment agencies, community groups, commercial organizations, and · Visitors and the general public have individuals. As interest in the Dry expressed varying opinions as to the Tortugas area increases, there are type and level of facilities that the park opportunities to establish partnerships should offer. Some prefer minimal facil- with other managers and operators. ities, while others would like additional restrooms, campsites, showers, mooring buoys, and dock space. Infrastructure ISSUES BEYOND THE such as the sewage disposal system is SCOPE OF THIS PLAN inadequate for current levels of visita- tion. Freshwater storage and processing This plan is intended to establish general, are at capacity and will not support conceptual guidance for the management of additional demand. Options to provide Dry Tortugas National Park. Subsequent basic utilities and other facilities are plans and reports will implement this greatly restricted by the limited land management plan and provide more detailed area, its closeness to open water, and the management direction. These plans would need to generate power to treat water include a concessions contract prospectus, in and wastewater. Power must be which specific commercial services parame- generated onsite with diesel-fueled ters, feasibility analysis, and operations generators. Also, intrusions into historic options would be outlined. The park also and submerged cultural resource sites needs an interpretive plan that establishes present concerns. Currently, there is an interpretive themes and the ways they will imbalance between visitation levels, be communicated to the visitor and the facility and infrastructure capacity, and public at large. These implementation plans the need to maintain near-pristine and details are beyond the scope of this resource qualities in accord with the management plan. (See the “Recommenda- park’s purpose. tions for Future Research and Planning” section for more information.) No other · Although research programs are imple- issues were raised during scoping that are mented when funds permit, an ongoing beyond the scope of this management plan. program with cultural and natural Although many of the park’s resources resource indicators and a monitoring maintain high levels of integrity and near- system to determine status and trends of pristine conditions, some marine resources resource conditions do not exist. such as coral reefs and sea grass meadows Without baseline natural and cultural are being degraded by pollution, climate resource information, the National Park changes, and extreme natural events. These Service cannot become aware of external forces are beyond the scope of this plan.

13 SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES AND SPECIAL PARK MANDATES AND AGREEMENTS

In the process of preparing this General establishing legislation or that are required Management Plan Amendment, the planning because of a signed agreement with others. team looked at things the park must do regardless of which alternative is imple- PARK MANDATES AND mented. These “must dos” fall into two AGREEMENTS categories — (1) things that are required because of laws and policies that apply There are no special park mandates or throughout the National Park Service agreements in the legislation that established (servicewide), and (2) things that are the park other than fulfilling the park specific to Dry Tortugas National Park purposes stated previously. because they are mandated in the park’s

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ORGANIC ACT (16 U.S.C.1, et seq.) — to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife herein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

PUBLIC LAW 102-525 — in October, 1992, Congress established Dry Tortugas National Park to (a) protect and interpret a pristine subtropical marine ecosystem, including an intact coral reef community; (b) to protect fish and wildlife, including (but not limited to) loggerhead and green sea turtles, sooty terns, frigate birds, numerous migratory bird species; (c) to protect the pristine natural environment of the Dry Tortugas group of islands; (d) to preserve and protect submerged cultural resources; and (e) in a manner consistent with the above, provide opportunities for scientific research.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13089 — to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment. All federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems shall to the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems.

According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary ………

conserve – to keep in a safe or sound state unimpaired – uninjured, left complete or entire intact – untouched by anything that harms or defiles protect – to cover or shield from injury or destruction preserve – to keep intact, save, to keep from injury degrade – to reduce from a higher to a lower rank or degree, to depreciate

14 Servicewide Laws and Policies and Special Park Mandates and Agreements

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES

General

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action NPS Organic Act The National Park Service will “conserve the scenery and NPS Management Policies the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

Director’s Order 55, “Interpreting the “NPS Obligation to Conserve and Provide for Enjoyment Organic Act of Park Resources and Values: Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be assured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant.”

NPS management policies acknowledge that providing opportunities for public enjoyment is a fundamental part of the NPS mission. But they emphasize that recreational and other activities, including NPS management activities, may be allowed only when they will not cause impairment or derogation of a park’s resources, values, or purposes. The sole exception is when an activity that would cause impairment or derogation is specifically mandated by Congress. Public Law 95-625; NPS Management NPS management plans must include measures for Policies; protecting the parks’ resources and “indications of 16 USC 1a-7(b)(4) potential modifications to the external boundaries of the unit and the reasons therefore” (PL 95-625).

Natural Resources

The primary goal of natural resource management is to preserve the components and processes of the Dry Tortugas’ naturally evolving ecosystems. These components include the natural abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of the park’s wildlife and vegetation. The park’s natural resources will continue to be managed in accordance with laws and NPS policies and regulations, including those below.

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action National Environmental Natural Resources — General: This act directs agencies to Policy Act Guidelines, NPS- “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his 12 environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation . . . . ”

15 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action NPS Management Policies Policies and guidelines for natural resources direct that the park must NPS Natural Resources · Identify and complete the inventories of natural resources for Management Guideline baseline information. (NPS-77) · Maintain and protect the natural ecological processes occurring in Endangered Species Act of the Dry Tortugas and its immediate environs. 1973 · Minimize impacts of human activities, developments, and uses on Migratory Bird Conservation marine and terrestrial resources. Act of 1929 · Establish systems to monitor the condition of key natural Fish and Wildlife resources and to identify and monitor threats to those resources. Coordination Act of 1958 · Continue to close areas of the park to protect birds and turtles Marine Mammal Protection during nesting season. Act of 1972 Manage endangered, threatened, and candidate species.

Title 36 Code of Federal The 36 CFR provides authorization for Regulations 1.5, 1.6 1.10, · Closing areas and limit public use to protect resources 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 · Providing public notice of closures or use limits. · Prohibiting the destruction, defacing, or disturbing resources. · Protecting fish and wildlife and permit research. NPS Natural Resources Research Natural Areas: “Managers should give consideration to Management Guideline the establishment of restricted waters in which no fishing is allowed. (NPS-77) These areas can be valuable for the study of unaltered ecological processes and serve as important baselines or control areas for harvested populations of fish.” (Chapter 3, page 34)

“Prime examples of natural ecosystems and areas with significant genetic resources with value for long-term baseline observational studies or as control areas for comparative studies involving manipulative research outside the park may be recommended … for designation as research natural areas.

Research natural areas will be managed to provide for greatest possible protection of site integrity in accordance wit their designation. Activities in research natural areas will be restricted to nonmanipulative research, education, and other activities that will not detract for the area’s research values.” (Chapter 4, Special Park Designations, pg. 14) Executive Order 13089, Coral Reefs: The order helps fulfill the purposes of the Clean Water Coral Reef Protection, Act of 1977, as amended (33 USC 1251, et seq.), the Coastal Zone signed June 11, 1998, by Management Act (16 USC 1451 et seq.), the Magnuson-Stevens President Clinton. Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801, et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321, et seq.), the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC 1431, et seq.), the National Park Service Organic Act (16 USC 1m et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 USC 668dd-ee), and other pertinent statutes, to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment (see appendix C for Executive Order 13089).

The order directs that all federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems shall: (a) identify their actions that may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems; (b) utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems, and (c) to the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such

16 Servicewide Laws and Policies and Special Park Mandates and Agreements

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action Executive Order 13089, ecosystems. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force duties include coral (cont.) reef mapping and monitoring; research; conservation, mitigation, and restoration; and international cooperation. Development of the general management plan amendment for Dry Tortugas National Park has been consistent with the directives of this order. Duties and plans of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force will support and not supercede recommendations of this management plan. Executive Order 13158 Marine Protected Areas: This order helps fulfill the purposes of “Marine Protected Areas” the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Marine Sanctu- aries Act, and other pertinent statutes. The purpose of the order is to (a) strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of existing MPAs; (b) develop a scientifically based, comprehensive national system of marine protected areas representing diverse U.S. marine ecosystems, and the nation’s natural and cultural resources; and (c) avoid causing harm to marine protected areas through federally conducted, approved, or funded activities. The order directs that each federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural resources that are protected by a marine protected area shall identify such actions and shall avoid harm to those natural and cultural resources. Each agency affected by this order shall prepare and make public annually a concise description of actions taken by it the previous year to implement this order, including a description of written comments by any person or organization stating that the agency has not complied with this order and a response to such comments by the agency. (See appendix C.) Executive Order 11990, Wetlands: This order requires federal agencies to avoid, to the “Protection of Wetlands” extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction of modification of wetlands. Executive Order 11988, Floodplains: This order requires federal agencies to avoid, to the “Floodplain Management” extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modifications of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. National Parks Omnibus Scientific Research and Monitoring: Title II, Sec. 201. Purposes. Management Act of 1998, The purposes of this title are — Title II, Resource Inventory (2) to enhance management and protection of national park and Management resources by providing clear authority and direction for the conduct of scientific study in the national park system and to use the information gathered for management purposes; (4) to encourage others to use the national park system for study to the benefit of park management as well as broader scientific value, where such study is consistent with the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 Sec. 204 Inventory and Monitoring Program The Secretary shall undertake a program of inventory and monitoring of national park system resources to establish baseline information and to provide information on the long- term trends in the condition of national park system resources. The monitoring program shall be developed in cooperation with other federal monitoring and information collection efforts to ensure a cost-effective approach. Sec. 206. Integration of Study Results into Management Decisions The Secretary shall take such measures as are necessary to assure the full and proper utilization of the results of scientific study for park management decisions.

17 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action NPS Natural Resources Marine Resources: “Objectives for marine resource management Management Guideline are the following: (NPS-77), Chapter 2, page 1. Inventory all ecosystem components 95 2. Maintain and restore all components and processes of naturally evolving park marine ecosystems, recognizing that change caused by extreme natural events (e.g., storms, red tide, El NiZo) is an integral part of functioning natural systems. 3. Maintain natural genetic diversity of marine ecosystems. 4. Maintain or improve water quality affecting marine ecosystems. 5. Maintain or improve air quality affecting marine ecosystems. 6. Maintain natural marine viewsheds. 7. Protect and restore threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. 8. Regulate and mitigate human activities to minimize adverse impacts. 9. Determine limits of natural system variation (baseline condition). 10. Monitor system dynamics to detect abnormal changes in time to affect remedial actions. 11. Educate visitors about the importance and fragility of marine resources, threats to them, and mitigation to lessen impact.”

Cultural Resources

Under all alternatives, the park’s cultural resources (land-based and submerged) will be protected and preserved in accordance with applicable laws and NPS policies and regulations, including those listed below.

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action The Secretary of the Interior’s Land-based Cultural Resources: Continue preservation measures Standards for the Treatment at Fort Jefferson to arrest masonry deterioration and retain the of Historic Properties (1995) essential architectural character and configuration of the structure NPS Director’s Order #28 and its contributing features. All stabilization and (1998) preservation/maintenance undertakings will follow The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Preserve and protect land-based national register properties — e.g., Standards for the Treatment Fort Jefferson and the Loggerhead Key lighthouse and associated of Historic Properties (1995) structures NPS Director’s Order #28 (1998) National Historic Preservation Act (1966)

NPS Director’s Order #28 Assess all activities, including ground or offshore disturbances, for (1998) the potential to disturb archeological resources. If significant Archeological Resources resources were identified in project areas, avoid them if at all Protection Act, (1979) possible, or undertake appropriate data recovery measures before National Historic Preservation possible construction disturbance. Act (1966)

18 Servicewide Laws and Policies and Special Park Mandates and Agreements

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action NPS Management Policies Submerged Cultural Resources: (1988); NPS Abandoned § In accordance with appropriate professional standards, stabilize Shipwreck Act Guidelines and preserve historic shipwrecks and submerged cultural (1990), National Historic resources in place. Preservation Act (1966) § Permit limited archeological investigations only under an approved research design. § Document and evaluate the significance of submerged cultural resources according to the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. § Monitor submerged cultural resources to assess site conditions and undertake remedial preservation treatments as necessary. § Assess the suitability of documented sites for public visitation/interpretation. Sensitive sites would remain off limits to the public. § Continue archeological surveys to inventory and evaluate submerged cultural resources within the park at depths of less than 30 feet. Eventually, complete archeological survey for the entire park waters at all depths

Visitor Use and Safety

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action Safe harbor adheres to Safe Harbor: Because the park contains the only islands for marine traditions. many miles, afford safe harbor to any vessel when warranted. An executive memorandum Natural Soundscape: Americans regard parks as national signed by President Clinton treasures set aside to preserve this country’s natural and cultural on April 22, 1996 directed heritage and associated values and resources. The park system the Federal Aviation includes some of the quietest places on earth, and this quiet is Administration and the valued as a resource in keeping with the NPS mission. The National Park Service to resource is called the natural soundscape and includes silence, “develop appropriate solitude, and tranquility along with sounds of nature such as birds educational and other calling or waves gently washing against the shore. Soundscape materials for the public at also involves those sounds inherent in cultural settings. large and all aviation interests that describe the Today, many parks may appear as they once did historically, but importance of natural quiet they no longer sound as they did in the past. Increasingly, to park visitors and the need intruding external and internal sources of noise affect not only for cooperation from the the visitor experience but the resources as well. As stated by NPS aviation community.” Director Robert Stanton, “Natural sounds are part of the special places we preserve. Rustling winds in the canyons and the rush of NPS Management Policies waters in the rivers are the heartbeat and breath of some of our most valuable resources.” Noise sources in Dry Tortugas include watercraft, aircraft, generators, and other equipment associated with maintenance and park operations. In addition, visitors themselves may be a source of intrusive sounds.

Proper management of noise sources is necessary to preserve or restore the natural soundscape.

19 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action National Parks and Levels of Visitation/Carrying Capacity: The National Park Recreation Act, 1978 Service is required by law to address carrying capacity (how many people can visit the park and specific sites without damaging the resources or visitor experience) in planning for parks. One product of the process for developing this general management plan amendment was the identification of a range of numbers that would indicate the visitor carrying capacities for key park areas. These capacities acknowledge the strong relationship among the number of visitors, the quality of the visitor experience, and impacts on the resources. Specific use capacities for park sites such as coral reefs and Fort Jefferson have been defined based on current scientific information and daily park operational knowledge (see table 1) The process for determining carrying capacities includes

· Developing management zones that define desired visitor experience and resource conditions for each area of the park. · Determining a range of the number of visitors at one time at specific sites and attractions. · Developing indicators that can be monitored to ensure that desired visitor experience and resource conditions are achieved. · Developing a systematic monitoring process. · Incorporating the freedom to lower or raise capacities if standards indicate that no resource damage is occurring or standards warn that conditions require management action. Americans with Disabilities Accessibility: Make visitor and management facilities as Act; Uniform Federal accessible as practicable, depending on the nature of the area and Accessibility Standards; and of the facility, to persons with visual, hearing, mobility, and NPS Management Policies; mental impairments. Strive to provide the highest level of Architectural Barriers Act accessibility possible to facilities, programs, and services, of 1968; Rehabilitation Act consistent with the nature of the area, the conservation of of 1973 resources, and the mandate to provide a quality experience for everyone.

Meet accessibility standards on visitor transportation vessels and aircraft within the limits of marine and aircraft design and safety requirements. Work with organizations that encourage and enable use of park areas by special populations, which will increase awareness of the needs of these populations and help to ensure that potential visitors with particular needs are aware of the opportunities offered at the Dry Tortugas. NPS Management Policies; Visitor Safety: Although visitors assume a certain degree of Loss Control Management responsibility for their own safety when visiting Dry Tortugas, Program Guidelines (NPS- strive to ensure that there are no hazards posing a serious threat 50); Federal Assistance and to human health and safety. Ensure that actions to prevent known Interagency Agreement hazards will not conflict with NPS mandates to preserve the Guideline (NPS-20); park’s resources. National Security Decision Directive 259.

20 Servicewide Laws and Policies and Special Park Mandates and Agreements

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action NPS Management Policies, Interpretation and Education: The National Park Service will chapter 7 conduct interpretive programs in all parks to instill an understanding and appreciation of the value of parks and their resources; to develop public support for preserving park resources; to provide the information necessary to ensure the successful adaptation of visitors to park environments; and to encourage and facilitate appropriate, safe, minimum-impact use of park resources.

Commercial Services

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action The Omnibus Park Management Act of Concession Activities: Concession activities and 1998 was passed by Congress and development shall be limited to those facilities and signed into law November 13, 1998. services that are necessary and appropriate for Section IV of the Omnibus Act, which public use and enjoyment of the park. All deals directly with NPS concessions, is commercial activities shall be consistent with the called the National Park Service preservation and conservation of resources and Concessions Management Improvement values for which the park was established. Conces- Act of 1998. This legislation supercedes sion activities should be authorized in a manner the Concessions Policy Act of 1965, consistent with a reasonable opportunity for the which has guided Park Services concessioner to realize a profit. To encourage management of concessions for the last competition among perspective bidders Existing 30 years. concessioners would not have a preferential right of The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations renewal. For further details, see appendix D. (36 CFR) section 5.3 requires that all commercial activities in national parks be authorized by a written instrument (contract or permit). The Cost Recovery Act (16 USC 3a) requires the National Park Service to recover all costs associated with administering and monitoring business permits. The National Park Service guidelines that are applicable to commercial services include: * Concessions Guidelines (DO-48) * Loss Control Management Program Guideline (DO-50) * Special Park Uses Guidelines DO-53 * Public Health Management Guideline (DO-83)

These guidelines, along with fundamental policies, standard contract language, and operating practices, are used in managing commercial activities throughout the national park system.

21 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Energy Management

Law or Policy Management Direction / Action Executive Order 13123, “Greening the Energy Management: This order has many Government through Efficient Energy requirements, but the bottom line is that agencies Management (PL 95-619, 92 Stat.. 3206, have been given a goal to reduce their energy 42 USC 8252 et seq.) consumption by 30% from the base year of 1990 by the year 2010.

22 IMPACT TOPICS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION

The following impact topics were eliminated The Keys are the driest area in Florida. Due from further evaluation. These topics are to its relatively remote positioning from the briefly discussed below and are not analyzed mainland and Florida Bay, the Dry Tortugas in detail in this document due to the follow- is one of the driest areas in the Keys. Precip- ing: (a) implementation of the alternatives itation averages about 49 inches (125 would have no discernible effect on the centimeters) per year with 66% to 80% of topic or resource or (b) the resource does not the total annual precipitation occurring from occur in the park. May to October (Schomer and Drew 1982). Most rainfall results from local convective storms, which occur most typically in CLIMATE September and are least common in March. Precipitation from individual hurricanes The Dry Tortugas region has a tropical mari- typically ranges from 5 to 10+ inches (13 to time climate, driven in large part by the 26) centimeters but can exceed 19.7 inches influence of the Caribbean Sea and the (50 centimeters). Bermuda/Azores high pressure system. Seasonal variations in position and inter- The Florida Keys experiences more tropical actions with other air masses affect tempera- depressions and hurricanes than any other ture, precipitation, and wind speed in the area of the North American continent. lower Keys. Two primary climatic seasons Storms typically occur between June and are present. The rainy season occurs from November and peak in September and about May to October. The dry season proximal months. Twenty hurricanes typically extends from November to April. traversed Monroe County between 1900 and In addition to a comparative reduction in 1990, 11 of which were class 3 or greater rainfall, the dry season is punctuated by (Neumann 1993). Wind effects from hurri- rapidly dissipating cold fronts. Winds from canes can substantially affect marine as well the east-southeast typically prevail during as terrestrial structures, and the development the rainy season and from the east-northeast of many reef-building species of the Dry during the dry season. These wind patterns Tortugas has been affected by winds are disrupted by occasional cyclonic associated with both tropical depressions disturbances, including hurricanes, during and hurricanes (e.g., Knowlton and Lang the rainy season and cold fronts accom- 1981; Mah and Stearn 1986; Rogers et al. panied by strong winds from the northwest 1991; Wulff 1995). during the dry season.

Temperatures in the Florida Keys are the AIR QUALITY most moderate in Florida, and Key West receives about 3,300 hours of sunshine per Due to the remote location of the park year, the most in the state (Schomer and (about 70 miles west of Key West) and year- Drew 1982). Temperatures in the Dry round winds, the air quality is not signifi- Tortugas vary little from the rest of the cantly impacted by external land-based Keys, typically being within 33oF to 37oF pollution or airborne contaminants (e.g., (1oC to 3o C) of other areas. Highest urban or industrial pollutants, power temperatures typically occur in July and generating pollutants, dust, etc.). There is no August and approximate 90oF (32oC). source of airborne pollution at or near the Lowest temperatures typically do not drop Dry Tortugas. It has been hypothesized that below 66.2oF (19o C). airborne dust particles from the Sahara Desert may be providing a source of

23 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN nutrients and iron to places as far away as PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS the Gulf of Mexico, but the implementation of any of the alternatives proposed in this The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines document would have no impact on this prime farmland as the land that is best suited phenomenon. In addition, this possible for food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed external source of nutrients has not been crops; unique farmland produces specialty scientifically validated. crops such as fruit, vegetables, and nuts. According to an August 11, 1980, memoran- dum from the Council on Environmental SOILS Quality, federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on soils classified by The Dry Tortugas is the westernmost the Soil Conservation Service as prime or extension of the oolitic facies of the Miami unique. According to the U.S. Department limestone (Hoffmiester 1974). No sources of Agriculture, Natural Resources were found indicating that a soil analysis has Conservation Service’s definition of prime been performed at the park. A detailed farmlands, the land of the Dry Tortugas is analysis of soils from Monroe County is not appropriate for prime farmland available from the Natural Resources designation. Conservation Service, including Key West. No management action proposed in any of the alternatives would impact soils.

24 RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

U.S. CORAL REEF TASK FORCE — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN TO Administration, Department of Commerce. CONSERVE CORAL REEFS This agency creates and adopts management plans for the sanctuary. The Marine The action plan was produced by the Work- Sanctuaries Division of the National ing Group of the United States Coral Reef Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Task Force in response to its request for a working in cooperation with the state of cohesive national strategy to implement Florida and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Executive Order 13089 on coral reefs (see Management Council proposes to establish a appendix C). These actions were developed 151-square-nautical-mile no-take ecological in consultation with various stakeholders reserve in the remote westernmost portion of and cover the spectrum of coral reef the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. conservation from mapping, monitoring, A Draft Tortugas Ecological Reserve management, and research to education and Supplemental Environmental Impact international cooperation. The plan calls for Statement / Draft Management Plan is being designating 20% of all U.S. coral reefs as closely coordinated with this NPS General no-take ecological reserves by 2010, Management Plan Amendment / mapping all U.S. coral reefs by 2009, and Environmental Impact Statement and will monitoring to build an integrated national address only the proposed boundaries and reef monitoring system that profiles and regulations for the Tortugas Ecological tracks the health of U.S. coral reefs. Reserve, which is within the sanctuary. The Collectively, these actions are intended to ecological reserve concept was presented in provide a comprehensive road map for the sanctuary’s initial Draft Environmental federal, state, territorial, and local actions to Impact Statement as a technique to restore reverse the worldwide decline and loss of and protect natural spawning, nursery, and coral reefs. This is a living document, permanent resident areas for marine life, and intended by its authors to be revisited and critical habitats not already protected by revised regularly, and to be augmented by fisheries management regulations. agency implementation plans and an annual report from each task force member agency All aspects of planning by the sanctuary and summarizing significant issues and accom- the National Park Service have been plishments related to coral reef conservation. coordinated, including the involvement of This general management plan amendment the local and national publics. Although for Dry Tortugas National Park has been these agencies have different and distinct coordinated with the national initiative, and missions and responsibilities, it is recog- approval of alternatives B, C, D, or E would nized that the resources being managed are advance the two fundamental goals of the inextricably linked. Therefore the actions of task force’s action plan. one agency will affect the effectiveness of the other agencies’ actions. It is the intent of both agencies that the plans and subsequent FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE management of the park and the sanctuary SANCTUARY — DRAFT TORTUGAS complement and support each other. ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SUPPLE- MENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / DRAFT MANAGEMENT GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY PLAN MANAGEMENT COUNCIL — REEF FISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Dry Tortugas National Park is completely surrounded by the Florida Keys National The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary is part of Council is amending their Reef Fish Fishery

25 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Management Plan to propose as a preferred Florida ecosystem, the others being alternative — the permanent closure to Everglades National Park, Big Cypress fishing of the Tortugas South area and the National Preserve, and Biscayne National portion of Tortugas North in the council's Park. These four park units are managed in a jurisdiction. Also, the state of Florida is coordinated way. The National Park Service drafting fishing regulations to prohibit developed a joint “Coordinated South fishing in those portions of Tortugas North Florida Framework” for the four parks. The that are within state waters. Combined, these goals of this framework are included in proposed actions will result in comprehen- appendix B. sive protection for habitats from shallow to deep water extending from the park into The management of the Dry Tortugas is by sanctuary waters and Gulf of Mexico the same staff as manages Everglades Fishery Management Council waters. National Park. However, Dry Tortugas National Park shares more resource charac- teristics with Biscayne. The coral reef SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM system that lies within Dry Tortugas is the RESTORATION TASK FORCE — southernmost extent of the same track as STRATEGIC PLAN found in Biscayne, which is the reef system’s northernmost extent. Planning for The interrelationship of and balance the health of this reef system is done through between the natural and built environment in coordinated management in the two parks. South Florida has been the subject of much planning and manipulation throughout the § Visitor Experience and Resource 20th century. For example, less than 50% of Protection Plan (VERP). A VERP plan the original wetlands of the Everglades is needed to help achieve the desired remain after canalization to make more land conditions for resources and visitor available to agriculture and development. experience described in this General Much of this manipulation has been found to Management Plan Amendment. It would have had a detrimental impact on the address visitor carrying capacity and complex natural systems upon which much identify the indicators, standards, and of the South Florida region depends. The monitoring strategies that can be used to latest planning initiatives include the restoration of these previously disturbed ensure provision of quality experiences water flows and correcting the subsequent while protecting park resources. decline of many natural elements and sys- tems that depend on them. These initiatives § Resource Management Plan. The include more than 34 federal, state, and Resource Management Plan would be tribal organizations, 16 counties, and more revised to incorporate management than 100 cities. The National Park Service direction provided by this General and its four south Florida units have been Management Plan Amendment. The centrally involved. The coordination of all revised plan would detail the status of of these planning efforts is the responsibility the park’s natural and cultural resource of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration programs and would detail needs for Task Force. research, monitoring, and other programs. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE — § Comprehensive Interpretive Plan. COORDINATED SOUTH FLORIDA FRAMEWORK This plan would be developed to provide detailed guidance on Dry Tortugas National Park is but one of improvements to media, facilities, and four national park system units in the South education and outreach programs.

26 Management Plan Amendment

STATE AND LOCAL PLANS state on those lands and the resources in them is done through the Florida Depart- The park lies within Monroe County, ment of Environmental Protection. State and Florida. However Monroe County does not county health regulations do apply and the have land use jurisdiction in or near the park park must comply with the standards of because the only dry land in the vicinity is in those entities for water and wastewater. federal ownership. The state of Florida has jurisdiction over submerged lands not in federal ownership. Where that may occur within the boundary, coordination with the

27 RULEMAKING

A rule (also called a regulation) is a Other areas that could require rules include document published in the Federal Register the parkwide permit system and establishing to implement or interpret law or policy. A special protection zones. rule is generally published first as a proposed rule and receives comment from Proposed rules that result from the Final the public. It is then published as a final General Management Plan Amendment will rule. Once a rule is published in final, it is be published for public review as a next step codified in the Code of Federal Regulations of the implementation process. Public com- and remains in effect until it is modified by ments that are received on the Draft General publication of another rule. Management Plan Amendment that address topics that will be the subject of rulemaking Following the completion of the Final will also apply to the public review of the General Management Plan Amendment, draft regulations when they are released for rules would be published that would regulate public comment. This will save the public certain activities as directed by the final time by not having to send comments on the plan. Activities that could be regulated proposed rules that they felt were sent within the research natural area would during review of the Draft General include: Management Plan Amendment.

recreational fishing private boat use including bare boat charters research diving and snorkeling

28 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

29 30 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES

In this section a proposed future direction advantages” was used to evaluate and for Dry T ort ugas Nat ional Park (alt ernat ive compare the alternatives and to develop a C, the proposed act ion) is described along preliminary preferred alternative. with four alternatives, including one that describes a cont inuat ion of exist ing Alternative A, the no-action alternative, conditions (alternative A) and serves as a describes t he cont inuat ion of existing basis for comparison. conditions. Alternative B manages for increased protection of resources under Before the proposed action and alternatives exist ing management zoning and within were developed, information on park current authorities. Alternatives C and D resources, visitor use, and visitor provide for a research natural area zone (the preferences was gathered and analyzed. basis for which is described in the next Information was solicited about the issues sect ion) in two different , limit ed geographic and the scope of the project from the public, locations in the park, and alternative E government agencies, and special interest presents a research natural area zone groups through newsletters, meetings, and throughout the park except at Garden Key personal cont act s. Based on the park and central Loggerhead Key. The research purpose and significance and public natural area zones in alternatives C, D, and comments, the planning team identified the E emphasize resource protection and the resource conditions desired and a range of management of visitor use t hrough a appropriate visitor experiences or oppor- permitting system and structured activities. tunities for various areas in the park. The Fishing would be prohibit ed in any areas development of four preliminary concepts designated as research natural area zones. (alternatives B-E) for the park’s future presented in this document was the result. Because so much in the alternatives depends All four concepts were intended to support on the application of management zones, the the park’s purpose and significance, address following section provides background for issues, avoid unacceptable resource impacts, developing the zones and more detailed respond to public wishes and concerns, and information on the research natural area meet t he park’s long-t erm goals. An zone in particular. evaluation process called “choosing by

Some Definitions Private boats are defined as those owned or rented by an individual. Rented boats with a hired captain and/or crew would be considered commercial and are not included in this category. The same is true for aircraft. Commercial vessels/aircraft include any mode of transportation for which the passenger is charged a fee and which is operated primarily by commercial staff. Anchorages are where boats would anchor or moor while visitors snorkel or dive to nearby resources. Overnight anchorage would be within the historic preservation/adaptive use zone. Commercial Services is an umbrella term that encompasses any service in a park that involves the exchange o f money. T he two main types of commercial services at most parks are authorized by concession contracts and commercial use authorizations.

31 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

Some Definitions (cont.) Concessions are authorized by a legal contract requiring that specific services and/or facilities be provided to visitors. For the exclusive right to provide services and facilities, the concessioner pays the government a predetermined franchise fee on an annual basis. Contracts contain operational, maintenance, and environmental plans that detail what the concessioner is required to do. The business activities (charging fees, advertising etc.,) of a concession can occur within the park. Concessioners are often, but not always, assigned land and/or facilities within the park. Concession Contracts are legally, binding agreements between concessioners and the National Park Service to provide certain visitor services within a park under specified terms and conditions. Some services must be provided and are “required”. Others may be provided and are “ authorized.”. The National Park Service has three levels of concession contracts. Category I contracts are used for major operations involving land/facility assignments with capital improvements made by the concessioner. Category II contracts are used for less complex operations with land/facility assignments but no capital improvement program. Category III contracts are primarily for services only with no land/facility assignments, although personal property can be assigned. They are typically used for guide, outfitter, and simple transportation services. Commercial Use Authori zations (CUAs) are used to permit appropriate commercial activities within a park that start and finish outside the park. All business activities must occur outside the park. No land or facilities can be assigned to the operator. Activities cannot conflict with activities authorized in a concession contract. Commercial use authorizations used to be called incidental business permits (IBPs). If deem ed necess ary and appropri ate, the National Park Service can conv ert a CUA activity to an appropriate category concession contract.

32 BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPING THE MANAGEMENT ZONES

IN TRO DUC TIO N t here the dramat ic damage from human uses seen elsewhere. Damage caused by over- Congress gave very clear direction for fishing and destructive fishing practices, and managing the park in the enabling by the collection of and inappropriate legislation for the park (Public Law 102- contact with the coral, is observed through- 525). Specifically the law states that: out the Caribbean, but is limit ed at the park. Anchor damage to corals and sea grass beds The park shall be managed for the can be ident ified but is not of the magnit ude following purposes among others: of impacts found in places like Florida Bay or the Virgin Islands. (1) To protect and interpret a pristine subtropical marine ecosystem, Serendipitous protection due to the remote including an intact coral reef location is no longer a certainty. The Dry community. Tort ugas have been discovered, and the (2) To protect populations of fish and word is out. Boats are bigger. More people wildlife, including loggerhead can afford private boats or chartered tours. and green sea turtles, sooty terns, There is money to be made selling trips. The frigat e birds, and numerous Park Service has examined the impacts from migratory bird species. human use and extrapolated from them and (3) To protect the pristine natural studies made elsewhere the impacts likely to environment of the Dry T ort ugas occur given anticipated visitation increases. group of islands. Current management strategies at the park (4) To protect, stabilize, restore, and would make it difficult to fulfill the congres- interpret Fort Jefferson, an out- sional direction of protecting the park’s standing example of 19th century resources with the anticipated increasing masonry fortification. visitor numbers. (5) To preserve and prot ect submerged cult ural resources. In the following section, management zones (6) In a manner consistent with the are described, along with alternative ways of above paragraphs, to provide applying them to fulfill the purpose of the opportunities for scientific park — to protect the resources for the research. reasons Congress stated. Three of the management zones are updated versions of It is rare in the Park Service to have been zones in place at the park at this time. A given such clear direction from Congress on fourth, the research natural area (RNA) t he management of resources wit hin a zone, is based on NPS Natural Resources national park. In the past the park has had Management Guidelines (NPS-77) (see the two advantages in meeting these mandates “Servicewide Laws and Policies and Special from Congress. First there has been a long Park Mandates and Agreements” section). and rich history of research in the area, The objectives stated in the policy guide- especially through the Carnegie Institution’s lines for research natural areas are to former facilit y based on Loggerhead Key (see the discussion on Loggerhead Key in 1. preserve a wide range of undist urbed, the “Affected Environment” section). As a representative areas that typify im- result, much is known about the ecological portant … natural situations, that resources at the park. Second, the have special or unique remoteness of this cluster of islands has, characteristics, or provide outstand- until recently, spared the resources found ing examples of geological,

33 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

biological, or ecological processes of • eliminate accidental catches in shrimp scientific interest and importance; trawls (sometimes called “by-catch 2. preserve and maintain genetic mortality ” or “accidental catch diversity; mortality”) 3. protect against environmental • allow for population to rebuild and pro- dist urbance; vide insurance against population 4. serve as reference areas for the study collapse of ecological succession; • facilitate scientific studies 5. provide st udent and professional • simplify enforcement education; • protect sensitive habitats 6. serve as baseline areas for measuring • foster ecotourism and education long-term ecological changes; and 7. serve as control areas for comparing Because research natural areas can provide results from manipulative research. multiple benefits, they are being established for a myriad of reasons and goals. The goals This policy echoes guidance and manage- of a research natural area should be deter- ment objectives being used internationally in mined before establishment, and a monit or- t he prot ect ion of rare, unique, or imperiled ing program should also be initiated to marine resources and ecosystems. Other assess the impact of establishing the area similar prot ect ion strategies being used are over time. (See the management zone called ecological reserves and marine descriptions later in this chapter to under- protected areas. In the following discussion, stand the goal for the park’s research natural the term research natural area is used to area zone.) describe all of the similar strategies. The discussion describes how t he prot ect ion Research natural areas provide excellent st rat egy is being applied and what result s are protection to the natural habitats through being observed. restricting human use and minimizing the impacts of uses that are allowed. How well a research natural area protects the underwater BACKGROUND ON (benthic) habitat depends on the types of RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS invasive human activities allowed within the research natural area borders. The funda- Authority for establishing research natural mental ways that reserves may benefit reef areas is provided by the NPS Organic Act of fish stocks and fisheries is through the 1916. The use of research natural areas/ increase in abundance and size of indi- ecological reserves/marine protected areas viduals within the research natural areas. In has recently gained scientific and public turn, this increase in population abundance support as a means to (1) mit igat e the nega- and size can benefit local fisheries through t ive effect s of fishing, and (2) provide the export of larvae and juvenile and adult sanctuaries for the recovery and sustain- fish into less protected areas. ability of fish stocks, the restoration of nat ural habit at qualit y, and the conservat ion Numerous studies have shown a positive of marine biodiversit y (Plan Development correlation between research natural areas Team 1990). Many other potential positive and increases in abundance and size of effect s have been postulat ed (Bohnsack protected populations. Russ and Alcala 1993; Bohnsack and Ault 1996); also, (1996a, 1996b) found that the average research natural area zones/reserves may number of large predators correlated with the number of years of reserve protection for • ensure adequat e quant ity and qualit y of two reefs within the Apo Reserves in the genetic material Philippine Islands. Several other studies • maintain or increase fishery yield

34 Background for Developing the Management Zones have also shown that grouper densities larger sizes will dramatically increase popu- increased in research natural areas versus lat ion larval output. Research conduct ed on nonprotected areas (Alcala 1988, Clark et al. the dispersal rates of a species (the teleost) 1989, Russ and Alcala 1989). DeMartini in the De Hoop Research Natural Area in (1993) concluded from the result s of South Africa implied that the emigration of simulation that reserves can enhance the juveniles out of the reserve was restocking number and size and spawning populations exploited adjacent areas (Attwood and of species, showing fast growth and Bennett 1994). Larvae moving to other places may counteract the effects of over- relatively low bidirectional migration rates. fishing in those other places (Carr and Reed 1993, Russ et al. 1992). A simulation study A potential result of the increased done by Holland and Brazee (1996) indi- abundance and sizes of individuals wit hin cated that for moderate to heavily fished research natural areas is the emigration of fisheries, research natural areas could these individuals out of the reserve into local sustain or increase yields. Another study fishing areas. A study conduct ed at the De showed that the use of research natural areas Hoop Nature Reserve in South Africa can lead to substantial increases in the size showed that catch rates increased for six out of the spawning stock when fishing of 10 species studied, with increases of up to mortality rates are high (Polacheck 1990). 400 % to 500% for two of the species (Bennett and Attwood 1991). Research The marine environment, particularly a reef conducted in the Sumilon Island Reserve in ecosystem, is extraordinarily complex, and the Philippines showed that the fishery complete understanding and predictability of yields in areas surrounding a reserve such a system may never be possible. In the increased after the reserve was established face of such uncertainty, research natural and that the authors concluded that spillover areas provide a safety net to reduce the risk of adult fish from the reserve was the best of a fish stock collapse in the face of over- explanation for this increase (Alcala and fishing or uncert ain management decisions Russ 1990). The results of a study on the (Lauck et al. 1998; Bohnsack 1998). Based range of movement of a large predator on on findings that the Florida Keys contain Heron Reef, Australia, were consistent with many large reef fish species that are cur- the theory that reserves can enhance neigh- rently heavily fished or overfished (Ault et boring fisheries through adult emigrat ion al. 1998), the park should be an ideal envi- (Samoilys 1997). The number of fish that ronment for the use of research natural areas swim into adjacent fished areas will depend to improve the state of the reef fish fisheries. on factors such as the species home range and movement rates, as well as reserve Mathematical programming, optimization, boundaries t hat int ersect desirable habit at to and simulat ion-based research conduct ed by allow for movement out of the reserve. Meester (2000), which is discussed in more detail later in this document, showed that the Research natural areas may also increase the effectiveness of research natural areas in larval production in the protected area and protecting reef fish stocks depended on the subsequent dispersal of larvae to areas several critical factors — the movement outside the protected area. Many commer- strategies employed by a species of fish, as cially important species have geometric well as its growth rate and natural mortality increases in egg production as size rate. The fishing mortality rate both before increases. For example, one 61-centimeter research natural area establishment and in red snapper produces as many eggs as 212 nonprotected areas after establishment is females t hat are 42 cent imet ers long (Grimes also important. 1987); thus, allowing individuals to grow to

35 MANAGEMENT ZONES

Management zones prescribe what specific son opport unit ies would exist to experience resource conditions and visitor experiences solit ude and quiet . Opport unit ies for would be achieved and maintained in each challenge and advent ure would be low t o particular area of the park under each of the moderate in this zone. At all times, visitors action alternatives (alternatives B–E). would be encouraged to act in a manner that (Alternative A’s management zones, which respects others’ use and enjoyment of the are similar to these zones, would remain the park. Visitors should expect moderate same as those in the 1983 management intrusions to the natural soundscape by plan.) Ideas for the range of zones came boats, planes, mechanical systems, and other from the park staff and the public in the people. (This zone would have the same scoping phase. They are grounded in the configuration for alternatives B–E and is park’s purpose, significance, and mission detailed on the map shown in alternative B.) goals. In formulating alternatives for future park conditions and management, these The setting within this zone would be pre- zones were placed in different locations or dominantly historic, and the integrity of configurations on the map to align with the significant historic resources would not be overall intent (concept) of each of the alter- compromised. The historic scene and the nat ives. That is, t he management alterna- land and marine nat ural feat ures would be tives represent different ways to apply the managed to maximize their int egrity and to four management zones to the park. support visitor use. Some aspects of the nat ural and cult ural landscape would be Each zone specifies a particular combination modified (e.g., site hardening, landscaping, of physical, biological, and social condi- and restoring dist urbed areas) to prot ect tions, the types and levels of visitor use resources and accommodat e use. Nightt ime desired, and the amount of manipulation of light levels would remain low so that t he nat ural or cult ural sett ing that would be visitors could enjoy the impressive night appropriate to support those conditions and skies. uses. Each zone also calls for a level of management or enforcement to maintain the Appropriate visitor activities could include desired conditions for that zone. Four learning about the park’s natural, cultural, distinct management zones were developed. and human history and it s ecological and historical relevance, birdwatching, pho- tography, walking, picnicking, swimming, HISTORIC PRESERVATION/ snorkeling, scuba diving, camping, boating, ADAPTIVE USE ZONE and recreational fishing. Some of these act ivit ies could be provided by commercial In an area managed as historic preservation/ operators. A range of interpretive, educa- adapt ive use, visit ors would be immersed in t ional, and orient at ion programs would be a built environment that is rich in architec- provided, wit h orientat ion and interpret at ion tural and cultural history. Interpretive and of resources taking place mostly onsite. educat ional opport unit ies would be great est in this zone, and opportunities would exist to To support a wide range of activities and experience both natural and cultural re- higher concentrations of visitors, there sources. Visitor activities would often occur would be more visitor services than in any in a struct ured manner (such as guided other zone, but food service and fresh water tours). The probability of encountering other would not be available. Facilities within this people and NPS st aff would be moderat e to zone could include visitor cont act facilit ies, high, but at certain times of the day or sea- rest rooms, exhibit s, and facilit ies relat ed to

36 Management Zones park administration and operations. Also mooring buoys and signs used for resource included could be self-guiding t rails, protection, interpretation, and visitor safety) mooring and navigat ion buoys, primit ive woul d be allowed. campgrounds, and picnic areas. Appropriate activities would include The management focus in this zone would snorkeling, scuba diving, swimming, be on maintaining and protecting historic boating, wildlife viewing, and recreational resources, maintaining visitor facilities, fishing. Some of these activities could be mitigating impacts from human use, and provided by commercial operators. Visitors providing for qualit y visit or experiences. woul d be free to pursue act ivit ies wit h Evidence of management activity and generally few restrictions as long as high resource preservat ion could be visible to levels of resource prot ect ion, resource visitors. quality, and visitor experience exist. Anchors generally would be permitt ed; however, tying to mooring buoys may be NATURAL/CULTURAL ZONE required in certain areas if protection of sensitive resources warrants restricting In areas of the park managed as nat ural/ anchors. cultural, maintenance or improvement of resource qualit y would be emphasized but Most informat ion and orient at ion would be visitors would be free to move about the received elsewhere, such as at the fort and zone with few restrictions. The surroundings before entering the park, although some in- would offer a sense of remoteness and peace format ion and int erpret at ion might be given in a vast expanse of sea and sky. The land, t o visit ors during tours wit hin the zone. sea, and soundscapes would be predomi- nantly natural with minimal signs of human intrusions. Visit ors would generally expect RESEARCH NATURAL AREA ZONE t o find solit ude. There would be the expect a- t ion that other individuals or small groups Research natural areas would be established woul d somet imes be encount ered, but con- in areas of outstanding and important re- cent rat ions of use would be low and visual source value in order to protect the physical and soundscape intrusions would be mini- structure of habitats and ecological proces- mal. Opportunities for challenge and adven- ses. In Dry Tortugas, research natural areas t ure would be relat ively high compared to would protect a representative range of other zones, and boat ers would need to be terrestrial and marine resources that would self-reliant and have good marine and ensure protection of spawning fish stocks navigational skills. and fish diversity and to prot ect near-prist ine habit at s and processes to ensure high-qualit y The natural scene would remain largely research opport unit ies. intact, with natural processes predominating. There would be little lasting evidence of Research natural areas would be representa- recreational impacts, and most management tive of the park’s near-pristine, intact act ions would be devot ed to prot ect ing ecosystems (islands, deep and shallow coral resources, minimizing or preventing impacts reefs, sea grass beds, sand, and hard bott om from visitor use, enhancing visitor safety, [type of resource on the sea floor]). Visitor and restoring dist urbed areas. t ravel and behavior within the zone would be highly cont rolled t o maint ain the highest Facilities would generally not be appro- levels of resource quality. This zone would priate; however, interpretive signs might be provide baseline areas for measuring long- appropriate in certain cases. Minor altera- term ecological changes. Within research tions to the natural environment (such as natural areas the natural land, sea, and

37 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION soundscapes would predominate. The areas other consumptive activities would not be woul d be managed to provide the great est allowed. Commercial tour providers and possible protect ion of resource int egrity. privat e boat ers would be required t o use They would be set aside permanent ly and mooring buoys. The use of anchors would managed for approved nonmanipulative be prohibited in the research natural area. research (research that measures but does not alter the existing condition), and natural Most development and facilit ies would not processes (e.g., ecological succession) be appropriat e, but signs, mooring buoys, woul d be allowed t o occur wit hout and scientific research equipment such as disturbance or impacts from humans. site markers or small sampling devices would be permitted. For further information There would be no last ing signs of recrea- on research natural areas, see the previous t ional use, and no manipulat ion of nat ural or “Background for Developing the cult ural resources would be permitt ed Management Zones” section and the (except those aimed at restoring natural “Impacts on Natural Resources” section. conditions or preserving special cultural resources). There would be extremely low t olerance for resource degradat ion or dis- S P EC IAL P RO TEC TIO N ZO NE turbance. The preservation and maintenance of biological and genet ic diversity would be The special prot ect ion zone would be an important objective. Research natural est ablished to provide added prot ect ion for areas would offer outstanding opportunities certain exceptional and critical resources for scientific research and learning about and would be managed t o allow nat ural natural systems, and public education and processes to occur without disturbance or interpret at ion would be import ant act ivit ies impacts from humans — i.e., no activity, in this zone. Visitors would experience a except research, would be allowed. This sense of remoteness and peace in a vast zone could be est ablished to include bird expanse of sea and sky. Areas and resources and sea turtle nesting areas, areas of shallow woul d be int erpret ed so that visit ors could or sensitive coral, or significant submerged understand the reasons for establishing the cult ural resources. T he boundaries of the research natural area. zone could be adjust ed, or management could be changed, to respond to changing There would be a low t o moderat e expect a- resource conditions. In certain cases, areas tion of seeing NPS staff, and a high expecta- in this zone might be closed for extended t ion of encountering commercial guides. periods to permit natural processes to There would be a low expect at ion of en- proceed. Thus, the special protection zone is count ering other tour groups, and tour group a management tool and “overlay” zone that sizes would be small. Under certain condi- allows protection of resources at certain tions chances would exist to experience times and in certain places throughout the solitude, tranquility, quiet, and to view rare park. For example, although the eastern or sensitive species. shore of Loggerhead Key may be a natural/ cultural zone for part of the year, when turtle Activities occurring within a research nesting is taking place, this area would be nat ural area would be rest rict ed to non- zoned as a special protection zone. manipulative research, education, and other act ivit ies that do not detract from the area’s Natural land, sea, and soundscapes would research values. Nonconsumptive activities, predominate within the zone. Lasting signs such as wildlife viewing, snorkeling, sight- of recreat ional use would not be apparent , seeing, boat ing, photography, and diving, and no manipulat ion of resources would be woul d be managed so that resources would permitted, except actions aimed at restoring not be degraded. Recreational fishing and natural conditions or preserving special

38 Management Zones cultural resources. There would be no in managing coral reefs and have observed t olerance for resource degradat ion or the relationship between visitor use and the dist urbance. condit ion of the resource was assembled t o develop these preliminary numbers, which were then reviewed by several other experts. MANAGING FOR VISITOR Their experience includes research in similar EXPERIENCE AND RESOURCE resources as well as the implementation of P RO TEC TIO N ( VERP ) management practices elsewhere and at Dry Tortugas. The purpose of these numbers is The desired resource condit ions and visitor t o provide a best estimate of use so that the experiences are described in each impacts of the management approaches in management zone. Indicators of resource each alternative can be assessed and to condit ion and visitor experiences would be estimate the feasibility of commercial developed that would reflect the overall service options. Through monitoring, the condition of the zone and allow measure- park staff will determine if these numbers ment of visitor impacts on biological, are viable/acceptable; if not, the numbers physical, and cultural resources of the park, may be modified. The process of as well as measurement of the impacts on det ermining how much use is too much is a visitor experiences. Standards for each dynamic one. Identifying standards and indicator would be set that est ablish the indicators to monitor success of these maximum amount of det eriorat ion of numbers, and adjusting the numbers or resource or experience qualit y that would be management strat egies when monit oring allowed before management act ion is taken. indicates conditions are out of standard, will Monitoring programs that would measure be critical to the success of this process. the condition of resources and visitor There will be follow-up plans such as a experiences would be init iat ed. revised resource management plan and a VERP implementation plan to test these A starting point was set with the preliminary numbers. numbers in table 1. A group of staff and researchers who have extensive experience

39 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

TABLE 1. RANGES OF VISITOR USE AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS

Garden Key Maximum tot al people per day = 330. T his includes t he 24-36 people who might visit Loggerhead Key during the day, eit her via commercial tour or privat e boat . Permit s for concession cont ract holders would be writt en to (1) ensure that arrivals and depart ures are st aggered throughout the day, (2) reduce point -loading at any given site, especially the dock, and (3) reduce the total number of people at one time on the key.

Arrivals of people and allot ment s would be as follows:

150 by two or more boat s by the ferry concession cont ract holder 60 by the seaplane concession contract holder 50 by private boats or commercial use authorization (CUA) holders 68 maximum number of campers at one time (regardless of arrival time or day) 328

Campground:

A reservation system would be implemented. Campers must have a reservation to stay overnight on Garden Key. The campground maximum capacities shall be as follows: 8 individual sites with 6 campers each = 48 __1 group site with a maximum of 20 = 20 68 Total campers

Tours:

Tours of the fort or any other tours in the fut ure on or around Garden Key woul d be limit ed to a maximum of 20–25 people. Tours would be st aggered so t hat concurrent tours are not visible to each other except for brief periods of time.

Ot her dest inat ions on Garden Key would be managed to minimize crowding by offering simult aneous alt ernat ive act ivit ies, by sequencing lunch service, by st aggering arrivals and depart ures, and by encouraging privat e boat ers to visit the key after the commercial day visitors have departed.

Mooring buoys:

Mooring buoys would be locat ed in the research nat ural area, and in other zones, after additional analysis of the resources and attractions that are appropriate for visitation in each zone. The final number and location of these buoys woul d be det ermined as a result of this analysis. Buoys may be clustered according to the size of the attraction, i.e., coral reef or submerged shipwreck.

Group size for snorkeling and diving with commercial guides in waters in the research natural area shall be a maximum of 6 including the guide.

40 Management Zones

Loggerhead Maximum tot al people per day = 24–36. Ke y 24 would be the maximum capacity initially to (1) allow the collection of baseline dat a and the establishment of a monit oring program, and (2) allow the reveget at ion that is current ly underway to be complet ed. These 24–36 people are included in the maximum of 330 arrivals at Garden Key.

Of these 24 visitors, a maximum of 12 shall be from commercial use aut horizat ions or concession tours, and a maximum of 12 shall be from privat e boat s. More privat e boat s might be allowed if the CUA or concession allotment is not filled; however, the concession/CUA allotment would not be adjusted based upon private boat capacity.

Uses shall be directed as follows:

In the historic/adaptive use zone, uses such as picnicking, hiking, and exploring would be unrestricted, except there would be no access to buildings unless t he superint endent det ermines access is safe and appropriat e to the purposes of the park

Access to all beach/tidal areas would be restricted to the area between the low water line and where the dune grasses begin.

There would be no access to shallow (6 feet or less) near shore coral reefs. Swimming would not be allowed from Loggerhead Key beaches.

Access into the upland areas within the research natural area would be allowed only on a designat ed trail on the northeast end of the key that would follow the existing hardened path; the trail would go to cultural sites and to the beach.

MONITORING TO MAINTAIN grass beds woul d be measured. Surveys VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND woul d be conduct ed at specified t imes and RESOURCE PROTECTION places to determine the frequency of inappropriat e anchoring. Park staff would To ensure that the key desired conditions contact owners of anchored boats to inform (described below) remain as prescribed, them of the monitoring activity and then use monitoring would take place to evaluate a glass window tube or snorkel/dive gear to resource conditions and visitor experiences. investigate the location of the boat’s anchor. (Not all condit ions list ed above are key If it were on coral or sea grass, measure- conditions.) Work would be needed fol- ment s would be t aken to det ermine the area lowing this general management plan of dist urbance and the ext ent of resource amendment to refine the indicators, damage. Indicat ors would be t he number of standards, and monitoring methods incidents of improper anchorage and area of described belo w. dist urbance.

Anchorage s Submerged Cultural Resources

Where the use of anchors would be allowed, ƒ Damage to exposed resources — Rapid the damage to coral reef structures or to sea “ swim-by” surveys would be conduct ed

41 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

to look for recent damage attributable to survey period. Cont act s would be visitor use. A condition class rating categorized by type of contact (i.e., woul d be developed that combines standing up, fins, hands), whether number of occurrences with severity and cont act is int ent ional, whether damage significance of damage. Surveys would was done, severit y of damage, et c. be conduct ed several t imes/year on t he most popular dive wrecks and less ƒ Theft of coral reef organisms — frequently on less popular wrecks. Observation surveys would be conduct ed as described above or at ƒ Loss of artifacts — Photography would greater distances with binoculars to see be used t o document the theft of if organisms were brought int o boat s. artifacts. A condition class rating would be developed that combines the number ƒ Broken corals and sea fans — A limited of missing artifacts with their signifi- number of line transects could be sur- cance. Surveys would be completed veyed on an annual basis to examine the annually for popular dive wrecks and number of broken corals and sea fans. less frequently on less popular wrecks. This data would need to be compared to an unused control area that is environ- mentally similar (possibly difficult to Coral Reefs find). The difference between measures woul d be att ribut ed to visitor use. ƒ Damage to coral struct ures and ot her attached organisms — Anonymous snorkeling/diving observation surveys Visitor Experience woul d be conduct ed by NPS st aff or researchers at specific times and places The density of use occurring at use sites with both unaffiliated and commercially would measure the quality of the visitor’s led visitor groups. Visitor contact with experience. Observational surveys would be reef organisms would be visually moni- conducted at specific times and places to t ored, and the number of incident s per det ermine whet her or not the desired observat ional time would be recorded, conditions are being met. e.g., three contact incidents/ 20-minute

42 PARKWIDE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

This section describes actions or the lack of previously described in this document , to act ions that would be t aken, in addit ion to fulfill the park’s mission goals regardless of the servicewide policies and mandates which alternative is chosen.

TABLE 2. PARKWIDE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, ALL ALTERNATIVES

Parkwide Management Actions, All Alternatives Visitor Visitor Facilities and Services. Visitor travel to the park would continue to be by Experience commercial ferry or plane or by private boat.

Most visitors would be day users, and because of time constraints, Fort Jefferson would likely remain the primary destination site. In addition to touring the fort, other recreational opportunities would include snorkeling, scuba diving, boating, swimming, camping, and wildlife viewing. (Fishing opportunities would vary between alternatives, but under all alternatives recreational fishing would be allowed at Garden Key.) Because o f physical and operational constraints, and to maintain the near-pristine resources and sense of remoteness important to fulfilling the purpose of the park, visitor services and facilities would remain much as they are today. Visitors would need to be self-sufficient and provide their own food, water, equipment, and other supplies.

An interagency visitor center would be established in Key West under all alternatives (a visitor contact facility in Key West was called for in the 1983 General Management Plan). The agencies participating would be the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The center would have general park information and interactive exhibits and give potential visitors pre-visit information to make their experience more meaningful and help them be better prepared for the trip, including transportation information. The center could also serve as an alternative to visiting the park for those who cannot visit the park. Information and exhibits about the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and national wildlife refuges in the Florida Keys would be provided, as well as help for visitors to plan ways to visit and enjoy these areas. The three agencies would share staffing responsibilities and would jointly plan and coordinate the stories to be told and the exhibits and programs to tell them. The visitor center staff would also coordinate information dissemination to the Chamber of Commence, the Internet, and other travel information sources.

The visitor center at Fort Jefferson would be expanded into additional casemates to support recommendations of a new interpretive plan that would be developed after adoption of this management plan. The new plan will expand interpretation to address all the management objectives in the park’s enabling legislation. Adaptation of historic buildings or expansion into the historic landscape would be limited to modifications necessary for docking boats, providing accommodations for seaplanes. Snorkeling around the outside of the moat wall might be accommodated by installing dive buoys and a ladder to access the moat wall at interim locations.

The Loggerhead Key facilities, including the dock, would remain for administrative and research use; they are not for general visitor use and that situation would continue in all alternatives due to safety and capacity restraints on the dock and staff on the island.

43 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

Parkwide Management Actions, All Alternatives Visitor Interpretiv e Direction and Topics for Dry Tortugas National Park Experience (cont.) Opportunities for visitors to learn vary by alternative, but all alternatives would emphasize understanding and appreciating the resources of the park and the appropriate use of those resources. Because o f the park’s remote location and sensitive resources — natural and cultural — the interpretive program would be high profile and directed toward orientation, education, and protection of resources. All visitors to the park must have access to resource interpretation and orientation before arrival as well as on site. Studies of visitor behavior in other marine and coral reef parks has shown very positive results when visitors are given information about the effects of their behavior on park resources. After receiving in formation and education, visitors significantly reduce detrimental behavior such as swimming near coral in shallow water, touching or brushing against coral, or anchoring on coral. To this end, every interpretive opportunity outside the park’s boundaries would be identified and developed to the fullest extent.

Dry Tortugas National Park is a one-of-a kind resource. It offers unique opportunities for cognitive, affective, sensory, and physical experiences to visitors. As such, visitors to Dry Tortugas National Park would be able to:

• Experience the essence of the park’s wild and remote nature — from wildlife, coral reefs, and scenery to wonder, quiet, solitude, and personal inspiration. • Hear the echoes of the past through the stories the park preserves. • Develop a sense of appreciation and responsibility that will result in actions to protect, support, and promote the park and the national park system (e.g., politically, financially, and through volunteer activities). • Success fully plan their visits and orient themselves to facilities, attractions, features, and experien ces. • Behave in ways that do not hurt themselves or park resources. • Enjoy themselves, have memorable experiences, and go home feeling enriched. • Understand the park’s significance and the park’s primary interpretive themes. • Encounter programs, media, and facilities that enhance their educational experiences. • Learn about the fragility of the park and threats to its resources.

The following primary interpretive topics for the park derive directly from the establishing legislation and fall into two major categories: the interpretation of (1) park resources and (2) park management activities. The marrying of these two elements leads directly to both protection of and appreciation for the park.

(1) park resources • the subtropical marine ecosystem • the pristine natural island environment • the human history and strategic locale of Dry Tortugas • the submerged cultural resources

(2) park management activities • managing vegetative and wildlife populations • appropriate public use and enjoyment • park research activities

Each of these interpretive topics has many subtopics that may be used to help visitors understand and appreciate the sensitive nature of park resources.

44 Parkwide Management Actions

Parkwide Management Actions, All Alternatives Visitor Interpretiv e Strategies Experience (cont.) Opportunities to reach visitors ashore and onsite would be numerous. Opportunities for education/interpretation/information on topics such as resource protection would exist at Key West, Fort Jefferson, and en route to the park by commercial operator. The interagency visitor center at Key West would be a logical place for pre-visit orientation for visitors arriving via concession-operated ferries. The development of a short video, for all to see before their visit, could be a cost-effective way to communicate critical issues and ways to interact with the park’s sensitive resources. Seaplane operators could also use this video. Through publicity, all visitors planning to visit the park, including those via private boat, could be encouraged to go to the visitor center. The park staff would engage in additional planning to improve visitor information, facilities, and outreach programs. Visitors would be educated through a combination of nonpersonal interpretive services (exhibits, waysides, radio and television media, and publications) and personal services (daily ranger-led interpretive programs, visitor center staffing, and law enforcement monitoring.

Other forms of outreach ashore include local Chambers of Commerce, marina operators, and the Internet. Printed messages could be included in concessions sales brochures.

Currently, the National Park Service partners with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in developing a series of television shows, some of which could address resources preservation and sensitive use of park resources. The expansion of Everglades National Park’s environmental education program to the southern keys, and other partnerships, could further disseminate park messages.

As commercial contracts are developed, provisions for training concession interpretive staff by the National Park Service could be required. Even requirements to place an NPS ranger on each ferry could be considered.

Once in the park, the interpretive message could effectively be conveyed through the expansion of the visitor center in Fort Jefferson. Other nonpersonal interpretive media could include exhibits on the Garden Key dock, the development of a film, the installation of self-guided trails (surface and submerged), audio tours, publications, etc.

Cooperating association sales would remain a critical means to communicate important messages and offer more in-depth interpretive materials, such as books, trail guides, dive cards, etc.

Personal services interpretation could be offered by the National Park Service, concessioners, volunteers, and special-interest groups.

A comprehensive, integrated strategy to develop and implement interpretive programs would be an effective tool to communicating the interpretive themes. The goal, while preserving the park, would remain to allow visitors to experience the significant natural and cultural resources of Dry Tortugas National Park on their own terms.

45 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

Parkwide Management Actions, All Alternatives Resource Natural Resources Protection T he establishment of an ecological reserv e adjacent to the park by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary would be supported under all alternatives. The night sky in this remote location would remain unpolluted by man-made light sources as much as possible. This rare opportunity to see the pristine night sky would be protected under all alternatives. The natural soundscape — that is the sounds of nature absent man-made intrusions on them — would be protected under all alternatives. Management will include the following actions:

ƒ Identify intruding noise sources. ƒ Identify and implement mitigation or prevention measures. ƒ Educate persons responsible for intrusive noises to change their behavior or practices.

Cultural Resources Historic preserv ation/adaptive use zone areas would remain in effect for Garden Key (Fort Jefferson) and the central portion of Loggerhead Key.

Research Supplemental support for research being done on the Dry Tortugas region, such as storage, would be established in Key West. This might be in conjunction with the staff office space mentioned in the “Park Operations” section. At a minimum this support would include boat dock space, offices, temporary housing, a laboratory, compressors for dive tanks, and storage space. It would constitute an offsite station for work within the sanctuary and the park. This support and facilities would not accommodate full-time permanent staff.

Some park structures and places would be adaptively used as a modest support base for research in the park and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Facility needs beyond what is available in existing park structures would be self-contained and would not place any burden on park resou rces or facilities. Such facilities might include a floating facility temporarily located within the park boundaries.

Park Current patrol boats and the Activa (the NPS supply boat that makes weekly trips to the Operations park from Key West) would continue their operations under all alternatives. Existing Key and West dock space for the Activa would be maintained under all alternatives. The pier and Facilities storage structure across from the Activa dock space would be the subject of an agreement between the National Park Service and the Coast Guard to allow the National Park Service to use the area for storage.

Besides space for storage, there is also a need for office space in this general vicinity. In all alternatives, office space would be sought. Offices might be with the sanctuary and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Decisions about this space should consider the interagency visitor facility (mentioned under “ Visitor Experience” abov e) as one possible solution.

Park Boundary and Mooring System The park boundary is marked with buoys, and there are other navigational aids throughout the park. (Some alternatives include additions to the mooring system to delineate zone boundaries and use sites and protect resources.)

Boundary Adjustments Because the park boundary is adequate to support park purposes, no boundary adjustments are proposed in any of the alternatives.

46 Parkwide Management Actions

Parkwide Management Actions, All Alternatives Park Housing Operations Existing permanent and temporary employee housing within the casemates would be and upgraded with energy-efficient inserts that do not further degrade the historic walls of the Facilities casemates. Additional conversions or modifications to the historic structure for housing or (cont.) administrative uses would be limited to the 2 1/2 “fronts” or sides of the fort that are already being used for that purpose. As staff increases in number, which could occur to varying degrees in any alternative, a new strategy for some of the personnel could be adopted. It could rely on permanent housing ashore, with personnel rotating to the park into shared temporary housing for tours of duty. Researchers and other staff from agencies who are doing research that supports the park purpose could be accommodated within the modified cas emates for the term o f their needs as space permits.

No other staff, e.g., concessioner staff, would be housed within the park.

Visitor Center The visitor center would be expanded.

Utilities Utility capacities would not be expanded unless technological improvements make such expansion feasible. Renewable energy sources such as photo voltaic and geothermal would be pursued to replace petrol eum for water heating and air conditioning. The reliance on petroleum for electric generation could be reduced further by managing load distributions during the day and meeting electric demand at night with battery storage. Renewable energy should be pursued to replace diesel electric generation on Loggerhead Key and reduce fossil fuel consumption on Garden Key.

Communication Systems at the Park Management would continue to explore new technologies to improve communications, with an emphasis on improving visitor information and visitor safety.

Necessary and Appropriate Commercial Activities Without commercial transportation most visitors would not be able to access or experien ce Dry T ortugas National Park. Because o f the logistics and costs involved it is the most effective and effi cient means for the average national park visitor to access the park. Without commercial transportation the park mission goals of educating the public and offering a quality recreational experience could not be achieved. Commercial transportation also reduces the number o f vessels traveling to and within the park and the associated resource impacts, much the same as mass transit systems in other parks. For these reasons commercial transport ation to the park is a necessary activity and is included in each alter- native. However, there is a need to manage this activity within the capacity of the resources to withstand use.

47 ALTERNATIVE A: CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION)

ALTERNATIVE A = The servicewide The parkwide manage- The act ions described below mandates and policies + ment actions + that support the concept for this particular alternative

OVERALL CONCEPT conservat ion would cont inue to be emphasized within this zone, although This alt ernat ive describes a cont inuat ion of appropriate recreational activities such as current management and trends (see Alt er- diving, sportfishing, and picnicking would native A map). Note that the management cont inue. zones defined on this map are from the 1983 management plan and are therefore different The historic preservation/adaptive use zone t han the management zones described for would encompass Garden Key (the site of alternatives B–E. If the no-action alternative Fort Jefferson). Provided that significant were selected, the park staff would try to historical values were not compromised, accommodate visitor use while also pro- adaptive use of historic structures and areas tecting park resources according to current in and around the fort would be permitt ed policy and legal requirement s. The open for visitor use and administrative purposes. access policy for visitation would continue The joint natural/historic zoning would within the constraints of current funding and remain in effect for all underwater areas staffing levels. Visitation would be expected (submerged lands) in the park to manage to rise as commercial use authorization and prot ect the park’s significant submerged holders use larger vessels (up to 100 pas- cultural resources (shipwrecks and other sengers) and private boaters increase in underwater archeological resources) and number. Increases would be limited or aquatic natural resources. The central cont rolled only on an ad hoc basis in portion of Loggerhead Key and Pulaski response to degrading resource condit ions, Light would cont inue to be designated crowding, or facility limitations. special use zones to accommodate U.S. Coast Guard operations. The map should be read in conjunction with the text because the MANAGEMENT ZONING map does not show all details that are explained above. As shown on the Alternative A map, the park would cont inue to be divided into five management zones as present ed in the 1983 VIS ITO R EXP ER I ENC E management plan. T he prot ect ed nat ural area designat ion would remain for Bush, Under this alternative, commercial operators Long, East, and Hospital Keys to strictly woul d cont inue to provide transport at ion to prot ect and perpet uat e significant nat ural t he park, but there would be very limit ed resource values (i.e., bird and t urt le nesting intrapark transportation. Most of these intra- habitat, and island vegetation). The natural park opport unit ies would be offered through environment designat ion would cont inue to guide services obtained offsite, e.g., in Key apply to all park waters (except submerged West. Consequent ly t our visitors would land below Pulaski Light), Middle Key, and participate primarily in activities that occur t he northern and southern port ions of at Fort Jefferson on Garden Key. Because of Loggerhead Key. Nat ural resources travel restraints, there would be a low level

48 Alternative A: Continue Current Management (No Action)

Alternative A map

49 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

back of map

50 Alternative A: Continue Current Management (No Action) of challenge and adventure and little chance allow according to the park’s resources for quiet and solit ude. management plan. Resources would be managed to allow nat ural processes to There would be no restrict ions on private predominate, with management actions boaters’ destinations or activities throughout limited to those measures needed to protect the park except in special protection zone resources or ensure visitor safety. areas. Anchors could cont inue to be used t hroughout the park during the day, and at With few restrictions on visitor travel and night all boat s wit hin park boundaries must activities, tolerance for impacts on marine, be anchored or moored within the historic t errestrial, or submerged resources would preservation/adaptive use zone around remain moderat e. Through random cont act s, Garden Key. Use of the dock on Loggerhead most visitors would receive a moderate level woul d cont inue to be prohibit ed, however of educat ion regarding resource prot ect ion. anchoring and swimming ashore would be Opportunities to educate private boaters on permitt ed. Privat e boat ers could expect to resource prot ect ion issues woul d remain find challenge, adventure, and quiet and limited. solitude. Visitors with a private boat or a guide hired offsite would have access to the Boat er educat ion programs would urge offshore coral reefs, shipwrecks, and keys caution in anchoring around coral reefs and other than Garden Key. sea grass beds t o avoid damaging these resources. However, the level of patrols for Visit ors could choose from a variety of monitoring and providing guidance for unstructured or self-initiated activities, visitor act ivit ies would cont inue to be low, depending on what equipment they rent or and the potential for impacts on resources bring, with few limitations on the type of from anchoring would remain high. Surveys allowed activities. Although visitors would and monit oring of resources would cont inue expect a moderate to high level of staff and to be ad hoc, as time and funding permit. social encounters in historic preservation/ With no approved research plan in place, the adaptive use zone areas such as Garden Key, level of research accomplished would they would still experience a feeling of remain low to moderate. remoteness and peace in most of the park. Recreational fishing with the necessary state Limit ed monit oring and research would license would be allowed t hroughout the cont inue to be conduct ed primarily for wat er park under this alternative. analysis related to wastewater facilities and some fisheries and cultural resources. Fort Jefferson would remain the focal point However, this monitoring would not be for visitor orientation. Interpretation of the accomplished within a well-integrated fort and marine resources would cont inue, framework of goals. but ranger-guided t ours would remain limit ed. There would be lit t le opport unit y for private boaters to receive information COMMERCIAL SERVICES and orient at ion other than at the fort , but t our visit ors would have addit ional All commercial services would continue to opportunities through commercial operators be authorized by commercial use authoriza- at Key West and en route to Garden Key. tions. This would include transportation to and within the park, fishing charters, snorkeling, scuba diving, photography, and RESOURCE PROTECTION wildlife viewing. Current commercial use authorizations have conditions included in Cult ural and nat ural resources would the permit to accommodate carrying capaci- cont inue to be managed as time and funding ties in the park, protect resources, and

51 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION enhance visitor experience. These conditions agement operat ions would be for prot ect ing woul d cont inue at a minimum and be resources, preventing or minimizing impacts increased if warranted. One condition pro- from visit or use, and restoring dist urbed vides commercial operators with interpretive areas. In the historic preservation/adaptive mat erials they can use on a volunt ary basis use zone, operat ions would cont inue to with their clients. Another limits the number focus on providing a quality visitor of passengers brought to the fort by the experience. larger vessels to 150 passengers as a com- bined total. Commercial use authorizations Because activities by visitors with access to woul d cont inue to be issued by t he conces- intrapark transportat ion would cont inue to sions staff at Everglades National Park and be largely unrestricted, patrols to monitor monitored by the staff at Dry Tort ugas. prohibited activities such as collection of Given the small staff at the park and their corals and artifacts from shipwrecks would resource prot ect ion and visitor safety cont inue to be necessary and labor int ensive. priorities, monitoring these authorizations Regular patrols to ensure visitor safety and would receive less than ideal attention. offer assist ance would cont inue.

A high level of NPS commitment would PARK OPERATIONS continue to be needed to educate and inform AND FACILITIES visitors about the park’s history, its resources, and the protect ion of those NPS operations throughout the park would resources. However, staffing likely would be unchanged (see the “Affected Environ- remain too low to accomplish these tasks ment” section). The main concerns would adequately. With few facilities to maintain, cont inue to be that the park is understaffed such as mooring buoys, the NPS mainten- and unable to adequately protect resources ance effort would remain at a low level and because of increasing visitation. Some facili- focus primarily on the dock, campground, ties are already exceeding their capacity and fort. during peak visitation periods. Most man

52 ALTERNATIVE B

ALTERNATIVE B = The servicewide The parkwide manage- The act ions described below t hat mandates and policies + ment actions + support the concept for this particular alternative

OVERALL CONCEPT special prot ect ion zoning would be selectively applied and public access would The concept of alternative B provides for be prohibited. Hospital and Long Keys, and greater protection of natural and cultural a rare elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) resources than under alternative A (see community near the Long Key/Bush Key Alternative B map). The types and levels of t idal channel, would be desi gnat ed special visitor use would be managed t o prot ect protection zones year-round. The map resources and the qualit y of the visit or should be read in conjunction with the text experiences. The total numbers of visitors because the map does not show all details transported to the park by commercial that are explained above. operat ors would be consistent with the aggregated carrying capacity targets of individual visit or dest inat ions (see table1). VIS ITO R EXP ER I ENC E Where critical resource degradation was observed, the park staff would direct Access to the park would be provided by intensive prot ect ion and/or remediat ion commercial aircraft and by large and small measures to abate impacts. Visitors would vessels (holding commercial use authoriza- be free to travel and experience a variety of t ions) and privat e boat s. Visit ors would be recreational opportunities throughout much able to travel freely throughout the park; of the park provided that appropriate however, visitors who arrive via commercial conditions were maintained. tours would have very limited opportunities to travel to sites other than Garden Key. The entire park, except in special protection zone MANAGEMENT ZONING areas, would be open to private boaters to dive and snorkel and for recreat ional fishing. As shown on the Alternative B map, the majority of the park would be designat ed a The number of visitors arriving at the park natural/cultural zone. The historic on large commercial vessels would be preservat ion/adapt ive use zone would be limited. The total number of visitors at one applied to Garden Key (Fort Jefferson), and t ime on Garden Key or any other dest inat ion woul d ext end outwards for a radius of 1 wit hin the park has been tent at ively det er- nautical mile to encompass surrounding mined by the desired resource condit ion and waters, including those around Bush and visitor experience for each site (see table 1). Long Keys. The central portion of Logger- head Key, where the historic lighthouse and Anchoring by privat e boat ers and commer- adjacent buildings are located, would also be cial carriers would be allowe d. Alt hough designated historic preservation/ adaptive anchoring would be allo wed, mooring buoys use. The remainder of Loggerhead Key, woul d be use d t o direct visit ors to select ed Bush, Middle and East Keys would be zoned sites. However, overnight anchoring would nat ural/cult ural, except during crit ical bird be restricted to an area within the historic and sea turtle nesting/hatching seasons when

53 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION preservation/adaptive use zone around In this alternative there would be low Garden Key . tolerance for impacts from recreational use.

Various and most ly unstruct ured self-guided Systematic, scheduled monitoring would or self-initiated experiences (e.g., snorkel- document changes in species and com- ing, diving, sailing) would be available to munities to provide direction for resource privat e boat ers and could offer a high level management and research. Monitoring and of adventure and challenge. Visitors with a research would be conduct ed on impact s on privat e boat or a guide hired offsit e would resources from visitor use, such as the affect have access to the offshore coral reefs, on coral reefs from anchoring or concen- shipwrecks, and keys other than Garden t rat ing visit or use wit h mooring buoys. Key. Because guided tours would be very Ot her monit oring act ions would include limited, tour visitors would enjoy those determining population and biodiversity of activities available at Garden Key, such as marine and terrestrial species. the fort tour, snorkeling, walking the moat, and swimming, which would require fewer skills and offer less adventure. However, Submerged Cultural Resource Strategy these visitors could experience the sense of remoteness and peace that the location of The NPS Submerged Resources Center has Garden Key in the Straits of Florida pro- undertaken a comprehensive archeological vides even though many visitors would be survey and invent ory of submerged sit es present at one time. True quiet and solit ude within the park. The project began in 1992 woul d likely be experienced only by the with the compilation and assessment of privat e boat ers. Their opport unit ies for such natural and cultural resource data that pro- peace would be high. vided t he foundat ion for development of the survey research design. GIS (geographic In this alternat ive, visit ors would be moder- informat ion syst em) comput er applicat ions ately to highly likely to encounter staff or were incorporated into the survey other visitors, especially on Garden Key. methodology. The project is a model for a wi de-area survey of submerged NPS areas. Opport unit ies for visitors arriving by privat e boat s to learn would be moderat e due to Using remot e sensing magnet omet er limited interpretive media and tours. Visitors methods, surveys have been completed for arriving by commercial transportation would more than 95% of the park’s waters at have an enhanced opportunity for education/ depths of less than 30 feet. The technique interpretation/information as part of their was designed to detect ferrous metal objects, tour package at Key West, in transit, at the indicating potential site locations. Survey fort , and at any other tour dest inat ion. coverage of the entire park waters at all depths will eventually be completed. Recreational fishing with the required state license would remain unrestrict ed under this A comprehensive and multidisciplinary alternative. monitoring program would be implemented to provide both annual site assessments and long-term detailed assessments for selected RESOURCE PROTECTION locations. As needed, more frequent assess- ment s would evaluat e report s of diver im- Alt hough anchoring would be permitt ed, pacts, conditions following storms, etc. Site visitors would be directed to anchor in areas research would be conduct ed in accordance where there would be little risk for with approved research designs that support damaging t he underwat er resources. park management objectives. Archeological research and investigations would meet

54 Alternative B

Alternative B map

55 back o f map

56 Alternative B applicable NPS standards and would have as private boat ers, would be required t o st ay minimal site impacts. out of closed areas and would be directed to areas thought to be less sensit ive by the The park would also implement measures to National Park Service. They would not be enhance site protection. Diving at ship- assigned any facilities in the park and would wrecks would be permitt ed only in approved be subject t o regulat ions and policies such as areas by means of mooring buoys and ot her use of the NPS dock at Garden Key. methods. Visitors would be directed away from sensitive locations, and remote sensing surveillance systems would assist park PARK OPERATIONS patrol efforts to protect significant sites. AND FACILITIES NPS operations throughout the park would COMMERCIAL SERVICES be unchanged (see the “Affected Environ- ment” section). The main concerns include Commercial use authorizations would t hat the park is understaffed and unable to authorize all commercial operations for adequately protect resources because of activities determined to be appropriate for increasing visitation and some facilities are Dry Tortugas National Park. All commercial exceeding their capacity during peak visita- use aut horizat ions would include, but not be tion periods. Most management operations limited to, conditions for operations, carry- woul d be for prot ect ing resources, prevent - ing capacity, resource protection, environ- ing or minimizing impacts from visitor use, mental awareness, interpretation, and visitor and restoring dist urbed areas. In the historic safety. Because the carrying capacity of the preservation/ adaptive use zone, operations park for passengers arriving by large com- woul d cont inue to focus on providing a mercial vessels is 150, operators of these quality visitor experience. vessels would share equally in bringing these 150 visitors to the park (e.g., two Because visitors would be permitted to vessels could each bring 75 visitors, three travel freely throughout the park with few vessels could each bring 50 visitors). restrictions on activities, a high level of patrols would be needed to monitor visitor The conditions for interpretation would use especially by private boaters. A high include t he provision of int erpret ive level of NPS commitment would continue to materials as in alternative A and personal be needed to educate and inform visitors service training from NPS staff. Training about the park’s history, its resources, and woul d also be available from NPS st aff for the protection of those resources. With few resource prot ect ion and visitor safety. facilities to maintain, the NPS maintenance Participation in this training would not be efforts would remain at a low level and required but st rongly encouraged. focus primarily on the dock, campground, Commercial use authorizat ions would be and fort. issued by the concessions staff at Everglades National Park and monitored by the staff at Dry Tortugas National Park. The monitoring PARK ENTRANCE FEE of these authorizat ions would be a higher priority than it is currently, and therefore A park entrance fee would be instituted to st aff would be de dicat ed to this act ivit y. help support the additional costs incurred for managing carrying capacities, visitor safety Alt hough not required, commercial vessel and enjoyment, resource protection operat ors would be encouraged to provide activities, and monitoring. (The authority to intrapark transportation and tours to sites charge fees may end; however, the park throughout the park, subject to the carrying would charge an entrance fee as long as this capacity limits identified for the natural/ authority exists.) cultural zone. Commercial operators, as well

57 AL TERNA TIV E C : P RO PO S ED AC TIO N

ALTERNATIVE C = The servicewide The parkwide manage- The act ions described below mandates and policies + ment actions + that support the concept for this particular alternative

OVERALL CONCEPT the world (according to the National Fisheries Conservation Center). The intent of this alternative is to afford a high level of protection to significant park See appendix E for the rationale for resources t hrough t he select ive applicat ion selecting this alternative as the National of the research natural area zone, instituting Park Service’s proposed action. a permit system for private boaters, and using commercial services to direct and structure visitor use (see Alternative C map). MANAGEMENT ZONING A wide range of recreational and educational opportunities would be available to visitors As shown on the Alternative C map, the provided that appropriate resource conditi- majority of the park would be about equally ons were maintained. Visitor experience divided between a research natural area on would be enhanced due to expanded access the west, and a natural/cultural zone on the t hroughout the park and higher qualit y east and south. The boundary dividing these resources to enjoy. The goal for the t wo zones would align wit h a longit ude of commercial service operations would be to 82°51’W, ext ending from the nort hern park be self-contained, thus reducing the strain on boundary t o a lat it ude of 24°36’N (t his the limited park facilities. The types and lat it ude would mark the southern boundary levels of visit or use would be managed t o of the research natural area). prot ect resources and t he qualit y of the visitor experiences. The total numbers of The historic preservation/adaptive use zone visitors transported to the park by com- woul d be applied to Garden Key (Fort mercial operators would be consistent with Jefferson), and would extend outwards for a the aggregated carrying capacity targets of radius of 1 nautical mile to encompass sur- individual visit or dest inat ions (see table1). rounding waters, including those around Bush and Long Keys. The central portion of The research natural area zone in this Loggerhead Key, where the historic light- alternative would be compatible with the house and adjacent buildings are located, ecological reserve that is proposed by the woul d also be designat ed historic preserva- National Oceanic and Atmospheric t ion/adapt ive use. T he remainder of Logger- Administration for the Florida Keys head Key would be zoned research nat ural National Marine Sanctuary, having the same area, except during critical bird and sea goals and subse quent constraint s on fishing. turtle nesting/hatching seasons when special When implemented, the Tortugas Ecological protection zoning would be selectively Reserve (which includes the park’s 46- applied and public access would be square-nautical-mile research natural area prohibit ed. Bush, Middle, and East Keys and the about 151-square-nautical-mile woul d be zoned nat ural/cult ural. Bush and ecological reserve established by the Florida East Keys would also be designat ed as Keys National Marine Sanctuary) would be special protection zones during the critical the third largest no-take marine reserve in

58 Alternative C: Proposed Action

Alternative C map

59 back of map

60 Alternative C: Proposed Action sea turtle and bird nesting/hatching season. Although the experiences for tour visitors in Hospital and Long Keys, and a rare elkhorn t his alt ernat ive would be highly struct ured, coral (Acropora palmata) community near t he opport unit ies would be more diverse the Long Key/Bush Key tidal channel, than in the previous alternatives. In the pre- woul d be desi gnat ed special prot ect ion vious alternatives, visitors with a private zones year-round. The map should be read boat or a guide hired offsit e would have in conjunction with the text because the map access to the offshore coral reefs, ship- does not show all details that are explained wrecks, and keys other than Garden Key. above. Under this alternative, all visitors to the park would have the opportunity to visit remote park attractions. Activities would include VIS ITO R EXP ER I ENC E snorkeling and diving at selected coral reefs and shipwrecks, swimming, and bird watch- Under this alternative, commercial operators ing, in addition to the activities available at woul d cont inue to provide transport at ion to Garden Key . the park, but the role of the commercial operators would be significantly expanded Opport unit ies for challenge and advent ure for day use activities. This expanded role on tours throughout the park would be high. woul d be t o provide intrapark transportat ion Likely encounters with other visitors who and guide services. A limited number of are not part of one’s individual tour would overnight /mult iday tours would be con- be low, especially in the research natural duct ed by operat ors holding a commercial area. The presence of commercial staff, use authorization. especially in the research natural area, woul d be high. The distribut ion of visit ors to key dest ina- t ions throughout the park would be managed It is anticipated that this would be the first largely through these commercial tours. time many of these visitors would have the Visit ors would be required t o use commer- opportunity to engage in activities in a near- cial tours or private boats (by permit) to visit pristine environment like the Dry Tortugas. and enjoy attractions in the research natural All of these visitors would encounter com- area zone. For recreational activities inside mercial staff, but the potential to encounter the park, including the research natural area, NPS st aff or other groups would be low t o all privat e boat ers would be required t o moderate in the entire park except in the obtain a permit, pay a park entrance fee at historic preservation /adaptive use zone near Garden Key, learn about the protection of t he fort . Although individuals would be in park features, and adhere to established small groups, the opport unit y level for the maximum numbers of visitors to individual group to experience quiet and solit ude sites and attractions (see table 1). The tour woul d be high. providers and private boat ers would be required t o moor at buoys in the research Opportunities for all visitors to learn more natural area zone. Neither anchoring nor about the Dry Tortugas and its environs recreat ional fishing would be allowed in t he woul d be very high. Privat e boaters would research natural area zone, but these activi- have cont act wit h NPS st aff through the ties would be allowed in the remaining permit process, thus increasing their oppor- zones. All private and commercial vessels t unit ies to gain knowledge and informat ion must overnight in the historic preservation/ about the park. Visitors arriving on the com- adaptive use zone around Garden Key (see mercial ferries for day use, or with commer- Alt ernat ive C map). A reservat ion syst em cial guides for overnight / mult iday use, woul d be inst it ut ed for the campground in would have a high level of opportunity to the future. gain knowledge, information, and interpreta- tion from trained commercial tour staff at

61 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION the docking facility in Key West, en route to An aggressive visitor education program the park, and on tours. All visitors would would focus on park resources and history have an orientation to the purpose and and resource prot ect ion. Educat ion and significance of the research natural area interpret at ion would be incorporated int o zone from NPS or commercial tour staff. All tour activities. The private boat permit sys- visitors would have access to information t em would include a high level of educat ion and interpretation at Fort Jefferson through in resource prot ect ion. All visit ors would media such as wayside exhibits, bulletin receive education on the purpose and signifi- boards, visitor cent er exhibit s, videos, and cance of the research natural area zone and publications. how the concept is being used internationally. The zoning and visitor use management schemes in this alternative would strive to Commercial tour users and privat e boat ers in create a high-quality experience for visitors t he research nat ural area would be required through the sustained integrity of the natural t o use mooring buoys. Privat e boat operators and cultural resources, the lack of intrusions would be directed to less sensitive areas and alterations to the natural landscape and when possible, and patrols would monitor seascape, the even dispersal of visitors, the for inappropriate activities. Commercial interpretation methods used, and the t ours in the other zones would be managed enhanced knowledge gained from research. similarly to management in the research Visitors would also receive the benefit of natural area zone. new information coming to light as a result of research activities of park scientists and No manipulation of resources by the Park investigators. Service, other agencies, researchers author- ized by the park, or visitors would be allowed in the research natural area zone RESOURCE PROTECTION except for restoration. Minor manipulation of resources in the other zones would be There would be very low tolerance for allowed, but only for visitor safety or impacts on terrestrial, marine, or submerged resource prot ect ion reasons. Consequent ly, cult ural resources due to visitor use in the the potential for biodiversity and increased research natural area zone portion of the populations of marine life would be high in park. There would be a low tolerance for the research natural area zone and moderate impact s from visit or use on these resources in the remainder of the park. in the nat ural/cult ural zone. There would be low to moderate tolerance for impacts on All natural and cultural resources in the park these resources from visitor use in the woul d be surveyed, and a regular monit oring historic preservation/adaptive use zone. program would be implement ed, regardless of zone. A high level of nonmanipulat ive To protect marine resources, anchoring research would occur in the research natural woul d be permitt ed only in the nat ural/ area, and a moderat e to high level would cultural and historic preservation/adaptive occur in the remainder of the park. use zones, and the use of mooring buoys woul d be required in research nat ural area Systematic, scheduled monitoring would zones to direct visitors to selected sites. The document changes in species and com- use of mooring buoys as a resource munities to provide direction for resource protection management tool might also be management and research. Monitoring and required if anchoring restrictions are research would be conduct ed on impact s on warranted. resources from visitor use, such as the affect on coral reefs from anchoring or concen- t rat ing visit or use wit h mooring buoys.

62 Alternative C: Proposed Action

Ot her monit oring act ions would include The park would also implement measures to determining population and biodiversity of enhance site protection. Diving would be marine and terrestrial species. permitted only in approved areas by means of mooring buoys or anchoring where The National Park Service would work with permitt ed. Visit ors would be direct ed away the National Oceanic and Atmospheric from sensitive site locations, and remote Administration and the state of Florida to sensing surveillance systems would assist cont inue to study the import ance of the park patrol efforts to protect significant Tortugas area to the fisheries of the region sites. and the hemisphere.

COMMERCIAL SERVICES Submerged Cultural Resource Strategy Access to the park for most visitors would The NPS Submerged Resources Center has be provided t hrough two concession con- undertaken a comprehensive archeological t ract s. One cont ract would be for a single survey and invent ory of submerged sit es seaplane operat or, who would be aut horized within the park. The project began in 1992 to carry up to 60 visitors per day. The num- with the compilation and assessment of ber of trips would depend on the capacity of natural and cultural resource data that pro- the planes being used, but larger capacity vided t he foundat ion for development of the planes would be encouraged to reduce the survey research design. The project is a number of takeoffs and landings. Beach tie model for a wide-area survey of submerged point s would be assigned t o the seaplane NPS areas. concessioner, and a section of the beach near t he dock would be de dicat ed to the Using remot e sensing magnet omet er operation. methods, surveys have been completed for more than 95% of the park’s waters at The other concession cont ract would be for depths of less than 30 feet. The technique a ferry operator who would be authorized to was designed to detect ferrous metal objects, carry up to 150 visitors per day. More than indicating potential site locations. Survey one boat would be use d in the operat ion, and coverage of the entire park waters at all st aggered arrival and depart ure times at the depths will eventually be completed (see the fort would be used as a management tool to “Affected Environment” section for survey maintain carrying capacity numbers and results). disperse use. The ferry concessioner would be required t o provide intrapark transport a- A comprehensive and multidisciplinary t ion and tours. The goal for the ferry/tour monitoring program would be implemented concession would be for the operat ion to be t o provide both random sample annual sit e self-cont ained to not put any addit ional assessments and long-term detailed assess- strain on the limited facilities at the park. ments for selected locations. As needed, This would include t ransport ing all wat er more frequent assessment s would evaluat e and wast e in and out of the park and reports of diver impacts, conditions follow- providing shelter for visitors. Therefore, a ing st orms, etc. Sit e research would be concessioner’s vessel would generally be conduct ed in accordance wit h approved docked and accessible for the duration of research designs that support park manage- their visitors’ stay in the park. Because there ment objectives. Archeological research and is limited space at the dock to accommodate investigations would meet applicable NPS t his requirement , an addit ional struct ure, st andards and would have minimal sit e such as a dock, might be required. impacts.

63 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

The det ails of how the tour port ion of the health and safety-related items. The ferry concession cont ract would operat e would be and air taxi concessioners would have det ermined lat er during prospect us develop- exclusive rights to any day use commercial ment and/or during an evaluat ion period t ours that begin or end wit hin park after the award of the contract. In the spirit boundaries. of being self-contained, the intent is to bring as much of the equipment and vessels Other appropriate commercial uses in the required back and fort h to the park as pos- park would be authorized by commercial use sible, alt hough mooring or docking some of authorizations (CUAs) or another appro- the smaller vessels might be considered. priate concession authorization tool. These Mandatory interpretive and resource protec- other operators would provide overnight/ t ion training and audit ing by NPS st aff multiday commercial tours. Clients would woul d be required for all concessioner tour st ay overnight on the vessels. If client s st ay staff. in the campground they would be subject to reservat ions and ot her use regulat ions. The A reservat ion system for the tours would be number of commercial use authorizations an integral part of the operations plan for the would not exceed 30 or the capacity of the concessioner. Tours in the natural/cultural resources to accommodate the use, which zone would be limit ed by est ablished site woul d be det ermined by monit oring. No carrying capacities. Tours in the research facilities would be dedicated to these nat ural area zone would be managed the operators. CUA activities would be moni- same as all other activities in the zone, with tored and could be replaced by one or more site carrying capacities enforced and the use concession cont ract s at a lat er t ime. of mooring buoys or other devices required. Group size for snorkeling and diving with Sailing excursions would be permitted by commercial guides in the research natural commercial use authorizations or another area zone would be limit ed to six. Because appropriate concession authorization tool most visit or use would be generat ed by with limits of 20 to 25 visitors per trip. A commercial tours, the concessioner would limited number of commercial use authori- be allocat ed 60%–80% of the available sit es zations or another appropriate concession or a separat e mooring system would be authorization tool for bare boat sailing est ablished. Authorized tours could include chart er “capt ains” would also be permitt ed. Fort Jefferson, Loggerhead Key, snorkeling, CUA permits or another appropriate scuba diving, kayaking, glass bott om boat concession authorization tool for guided rides, and scenic/wildlife tours. Fort tours fishing charters in six-pack boats for fishing woul d be coordinat ed wit h NPS st aff and in the nat ural/cult ural zone only would be limited to a maximum of 20 to25 visitors. subject to specific regulations to protect Loggerhead Key tours would be limit ed to fisheries resources as warranted. No CUA 12 visitors and subject to the use restrictions permit s would be issue d for guided fishing described on t able 1. charter boats in excess of six passengers per vessel. CUA permits would be issued to six- The concessioner might be authorized to pack boat operators for multiday diving rent or provide the necessary goods and t rips. CUA permit s would be issue d t o equipment such as masks, fins, snorkels, conduct wildlife tours, including bird diving tanks, compressed air, and kayaks. wat ching, provided the tours begin and end The concessioner would also be authorized outside of the park boundary. CUA permit t o provide food and beverage service (lunch) holders would be subject to established similar to what occurs now. The ferry carrying capacity restrictions for the use of concessioner would also be authorized to sites and areas within the park (see table 1). sell a limited amount of merchandise that enhances the visitors’ experiences, including

64 Alternative C: Proposed Action

The cooperat ing associat ion would sell education in resource protection, which educational and interpretive merchandise woul d require a moderat e to high amount of related to the interpretive themes of the park effort by NPS staff. NPS staff would in accordance with their cooperative conduct most tours of t he fort , although agreement. trained commercial staff would conduct some. Visitor information would be available at a new contact station in Key PARK OPERATIONS West, requiring NPS st aff commit ment . AND FACILITIES NPS staff would maintain most of the To afford the high level of resource pro- facilities in the park, although facilities tection proposed in this alternative, a assigned to concessioners would have moderate to high amount of NPS patrolling facility maintenance included in their and monitoring would occur in the natural/ contracts. cultural zone. A moderate to high level of patrolling and monitoring of visitor use A reservat ion system would be est ablished would occur in the research natural area for the campground on Garden Key to zone due to the permit and commercial tour ensure that visitor expectations were met. operations proposed. However, private boats woul d cont inue to be present in the research natural area zone. To conduct/manage PARK ENTRANCE FEE research and survey/ monitor resources, NPS st aff would expend a moderat e to high A park entrance fee would be instituted to amount of effort . help support the additional costs incurred for managing carrying capacities, visitor safety Resource prot ect ion and int erpret ive training and enjoyment, resource protection activi- of all commercial operators would be ties, and monitoring. (The authority to required, calling for a moderate to high charge fees may end; however, the park amount of effort by NPS st aff. All privat e would charge an entrance fee as long as this boaters obtaining permits would receive authority exists.)

65 ALTERNATIVE D

ALTERNATIVE D = The servicewide The parkwide manage- The act ions described below mandates and policies + ment actions + that support the concept for this particular alternative

Alternative D is the same as alternative C appropriate resource conditions were main- except that (1) the research natural area zone t ained. Visit or experience would be boundaries woul d be slight ly different (see enhanced due to expanded opportunities Alternative D map) and align with the t hroughout the park and higher qualit y Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s resources to enjoy. Commercial service preferred alternative for establishing ecolog- operators would also provide visitor comfort ical reserves in the Tortugas area, and (2) facilities on board, reducing the strain on the privat e boat ers would not be allowed t o limited park facilities. anchor or tie up to a mooring buoy for diving, snorkeling, etc. in the research natural area (however, private boaters would MANAGEMENT ZONING be allowed to transit through the research natural area). As shown on the Alternative D map, a large part of the park would be zoned a research The research natural area zone in this alter- natural area. The eastern boundary of the native would be compatible with the ecolog- research natural area would align with a ical reserve that is proposed by the National longit ude of 82°48’W, and the southern Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration boundary of the zone would align wit h a for the Florida Keys National Marine latitude of 24°39’N. Waters to the east and Sanctuary, having the same goals and sout h of the research nat ural area would be subsequent constraint s on fishing. zoned nat ural/cult ural.

The historic preservation/adaptive use zone OVERALL CONCEPT woul d be applied to Garden Key (Fort Jefferson), and would extend outwards for a The intent of this alternative is to afford a radius of 1 nautical mile to encompass high level of protection to significant park surrounding waters, including those around resources t hrough t he select ive applicat ion Bush and Long Keys. The central portion of of the research natural area zone, instituting Loggerhead Key, where the historic a permit system, and using commercial lighthouse and adjacent buildings are services to direct and structure visitor use. locat ed, would also be designat ed historic The types and levels of visitor use would be preservat ion/adapt ive use. T he remainder of managed to prot ect resources and the qualit y Loggerhead Key, Bush, Middle and East of the visitor experiences. The total numbers Keys would be zoned nat ural/cult ural, of visitors transported to the park by com- except during critical bird and sea turtle mercial operators would be consistent with nesting/hatching seasons when special the aggregated carrying capacity targets of protection zoning would be selectively individual visit or dest inat ions (see table1). applied and public access would be Outside the research natural area zone, a prohibited. Hospital and Long Keys, and a wide range of recreational opportunities rare elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) woul d be available to visit ors provided t hat community near the Long Key/Bush Key

66 Alternative D

Alternative D map

67 Alternative D

back of map

68 Alternative D t idal channel, would be desi gnat ed special than in the previous alternatives. In the protection zones year-round. The map previous alternatives, visitors with a private should be read in conjunction with the text boat or a guide hired offsit e would have because the map does not show all details access to the offshore coral reefs, ship- that are explained above. wrecks, and keys other than Garden Key. Under this alternative, all visitors to the park would have the opportunity to visit remote VIS ITO R EXP ER I ENC E park attractions. Activities would include snorkeling and diving at selected coral reefs Under this alternative, commercial operators and shipwrecks, swimming, and bird woul d cont inue to provide transport at ion to watching, in addition to the activities the park, but the role of the commercial available at Garden Key. Recreational operators would be significantly expanded fishing would not be permitt ed in the for day use activities. This expanded role research natural area zone. woul d be t o provide intrapark transportat ion and guide services. Overnight /mult iday Opport unit ies for challenge and advent ure commercial tours would be conduct ed on the tours throughout the park would be exclusively by CUA operat ors who begin high. Likely encounters with other visitors and end tours in Key West or other offsit e not a part of ones individual tour would be locations. low, and nonexistent in the research natural area. The presence of commercial staff, The distribut ion of visit ors to key dest ina- especially in the research natural area, t ions throughout the park would be managed woul d be high. largely through these commercial tours. Visit ors would be required t o use commer- It is anticipated that this would be the first cial tours to visit and enjoy attractions in the time many visitors would have the oppor- research natural area zone. The tour pro- tunity to engage in activities in a near- viders would be required t o moor at buoys in pristine environment like the Dry Tortugas. the research natural area zone. Neither All of these visitors would encounter com- anchors nor recreat ional fishing would be mercial staff, but the potential to encounter allowed in the research natural area zone, NPS st aff or other groups would be low t o but these act ivit ies would be allowed in the moderate in the entire park except in the remaining zones. For recreational activities historic preservation /adaptive use zone near inside the park but outside the research t he fort . Although individuals would be in nat ural area, privat e boat ers would be small groups, the opport unit y level for the required t o obt ain a permit and pay an group to experience quiet and solit ude entrance fee at Garden Key, learn about the woul d be high. protection of park features, and adhere to established maximum numbers of visitors to Opportunities for all visitors to learn more individual sit es and att ract ions (see table 1). about the Dry Tortugas and its environs All private and commercial vessels must woul d be very high. Privat e boaters would overnight in the historic preservat ion/ have contact with NPS staff, thus increasing adaptive use zone around Garden Key (see their opportunities to gain knowledge and detail map of this zone in the chapter on information about the park through the per- alternative B). A reservation system might mit process. Visitors arriving on the com- be inst it ut ed for t he campground in the mercial ferries for day use, or commercial future. gui des for overnight /mult iday use, would have a high level of opportunity to gain Although the experiences for tour visitors in knowledge, information, and interpretation t his alt ernat ive would be highly struct ured, from trained commercial tour staff at the t he opport unit ies would be more diverse docking facility in Key West, en route to the

69 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION park, and on tours. All visitors would have be permitted only in the natural/cultural and an orientation to the purpose and historic preservation/ adaptive use zones, significance of the research natural area and the use of mooring buoys would be zone from NPS or commercial tour staff. All required in research natural area zones. The visitors would have access to information use of mooring buoys as a resource and interpretation at Fort Jefferson. protection management tool might also be required if anchoring restrictions are The potential for all visitors to have a high- warranted. qualit y experience would be great due to the integrity of the natural and cultural Commercial tour use in the research natural resources, the lack of intrusions and area would also be directed, and operators alterations to the natural landscape and woul d be required t o use mooring buoys. In seascape, the even dispersal of visitors, the the other zones in the park, private boat low-key interpretation methods, and operat ors would be direct ed to less sensit ive enhanced knowledge gained from research. areas when possible, and patrols would The zoning and visitor use management monitor for inappropriate activities. Com- schemes in this alternative create these mercial tours in the other zones would be conditions. Visitors would also receive the managed similarly t o management in the benefit of new information coming to light research natural area zone. as a result of research activities of park scientists and investigators. No manipulation of resources by the Park Service, other agencies, researchers, or visitors would be allowed in t he research RESOURCE PROTECTION natural area zone except for restoration. Minor manipulation of resources in the other There would be very low tolerance for zones would be allowed, but only for visit or impacts on terrestrial, marine, or submerged safety and resource prot ect ion reasons. cult ural resources due to visitor use in the research natural area zone portions of the All natural and cultural resources in the park park. There would be a low tolerance for woul d be surveyed, and a regular monit oring impact s from visit or use on these resources program would be implement ed, regardless in the nat ural/cult ural zone. There would be of zone. A high level of nonmanipulat ive low to moderate tolerance for impacts on research would occur in the research natural these resources from visitor use in the area, and a moderat e to high level would historic preservation/adaptive use zone. occur in the remainder of the park.

An aggressive visitor education program Systematic, scheduled monitoring would would focus on park resources and history document changes in species and commun- and resource prot ect ion. Educat ion and ities to provide direction for resource man- interpret at ion would be incorporated int o agement and research. Monitoring and tour activities. Through the process of research would be conduct ed on impact s on getting a permit to enter the natural/cultural resources from visitor use, such as the affect zone, privat e boat ers would learn about the on coral reefs from anchoring or park feat ures and resource prot ect ion and be concent rat ing visitor use wit h mooring informed about the established maximum buoys. Other monitoring actions would numbers of visitors to individual sites and include det ermining populat ion and attractions. All visitors would receive biodiversit y of marine and terrestrial education on the purpose and significance of species. the research natural area zone and how the concept is being used internationally. To prot ect marine resources, anchoring would

70 Alternative D

Submerged Cultural Resource Strategy The National Park Service would work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric The NPS Submerged Resources Center has Administration and the state of Florida to undertaken a comprehensive archeological cont inue to study the import ance of the survey and invent ory of submerged sit es Tortugas area to the fisheries of the region within the park. The project began in 1992 and the hemisphere. with the compilation and assessment of natural and cultural resource data that provided the foundat ion for development of COMMERCIAL SERVICES the survey research design. GIS (geographic informat ion syst em) comput er applicat ions Access to the park for most visitors would were incorporated into the survey be provided t hrough two concession con- methodology. The project is a model for a t ract s. One cont ract would be for a single wi de-area survey of submerged NPS areas. seaplane operat or, who would be aut horized to carry up to 60 visitors per day. The Using remot e sensing magnet omet er number of trips would depend on the methods, surveys have been completed for capacity of the planes being used, but larger more than 95% of the park’s waters at capacity planes would be encouraged to depths of less than 30 feet. The technique reduce the number of takeoffs and landings. was designed to detect ferrous metal objects, Beach tie points would be assigned to the indicating potential site locations. Survey seaplane concessioner, and a section of the coverage of the entire park waters at all beach near the dock would be dedicated to depths will eventually be completed (see the the operation. “Affected Environment” section for survey results). The other concession cont ract would be for a ferry operator who would be authorized to A comprehensive and multidisciplinary carry up to 150 visitors per day. More than monitoring program would be implemented one boat would be use d in the operat ion, and t o provide both random sample annual sit e st aggered arrival and depart ure times at the assessments and long-term detailed fort would be used as a management tool to assessments for selected locations. As maintain carrying capacity numbers and needed, more frequent assessments would disperse use. The ferry concessioner would evaluate reports of diver impacts, conditions be required t o provide intrapark transport a- following storms, etc. Site research would t ion and tours. The goal for the ferry/tour be conducted in accordance with approved concession would be for the operat ion to be research designs that support park manage- self-cont ained to not put any addit ional ment objectives. Archeological research and strain on the limited facilities at the park. investigations would meet applicable NPS This would include t ransport ing all wat er st andards and would have minimal sit e and wast e in and out of the park and impact s. Informat ion would cont inue to be providing shelter for visitors. Therefore, a compiled in the GIS dat abase. concessioner’s vessel would generally be docked and accessible for the duration of The park would also implement measures to their visitors’ stay in the park. Because there enhance site protection. Diving would be is limited space at the dock to accommodate permitted only in approved areas by means t his requirement , an addit ional struct ure, of mooring buoys and other methods. such as a dock, might be required. Visitors would be directed away from sensitive site locations, and remote sensing The det ails of how the tour port ion of the surveillance systems would assist park concession cont ract would operat e would be patrol efforts to protect significant sites. determined later during prospect us development and/or during an evaluat ion

71 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION period after the award of the contract. In the Other appropriate commercial uses in the spirit of being self-contained, the intent is to park would be authorized by commercial use bring as much of the equipment and vessels authorizations (CUAs) or another required back and fort h to the park as pos- appropriate concession authorization tool. sible, alt hough mooring or docking some of These other operators would provide the smaller vessels might be considered. overnight /mult iday commercial tours. Mandatory interpretive and resource protec- Clients would stay overnight on the vessels. t ion training and audit ing by NPS st aff If clients stay in the campground they would woul d be required for all concessioner tour be subject t o reservat ions and other use staff. regulations. The number of commercial use authorizations would not exceed 30 or the A reservat ion system for the tours would be capacity of the resources to accommodate an integral part of the operations plan for the t he use, which would be det ermined by concessioner. Tours in the natural/cultural monitoring. No facilities would be dedicated zone would be limit ed by est ablished site to these operators. CUA activities would be carrying capacities. Tours in the research monitored and could be replaced by one or nat ural area zone would be managed the more concession contracts at a later time. same as all other activities in the zone, with site carrying capacities enforced and the use Sailing excursions would be permitted by of mooring buoys or other devices required. commercial use authorizations or another Group size for snorkeling and diving with appropriate concession authorization tool commercial guides in the research natural with limits of 20 to 25 visitors per trip. A area zone would be limit ed to six. Because limited number of commercial use all visitor use would be generat ed by aut horizat ions or another appropriat e commercial tours, the concessioner would concession authorization tool for bare boat be allocated 100% of the available sites. sailing charter “captains” would also be Aut horized tours could include Fort permitted. CUA permits or another Jefferson, Loggerhead Key, snorkeling, appropriate concession authorization tool for scuba diving, kayaking, glass bott om boat gui ded fishing chart ers in six-pack boat s for rides, and scenic/wildlife tours. Fort tours fishing in the natural/cultural zone only woul d be coordinat ed wit h NPS st aff and woul d be subject to specific regulat ions to limited to a maximum of 20 to25 visitors. protect fisheries resources as warranted. No Loggerhead Key tours would be limit ed to CUA permit s would be issue d for guided 12 visitors and subject to the use restrictions fishing chart er boat s in excess of six described on t able 1. passengers per vessel. CUA permits would be issue d t o six-pack boat operators for The concessioner might be authorized to multiday diving trips. CUA permits would rent or provide the necessary goods and be issued to conduct wildlife tours, equipment such as masks, fins, snorkels, including bird watching, provided the tours diving tanks, compressed air, and kayaks. begin and end out side of the park boundary. The concessioner would also be authorized CUA permit holders would be subject to t o provide food and beverage service (lunch) established carrying capacity restrictions for similar to what occurs now. The ferry the use of sites and areas within the park concessioner would also be authorized to (see table 1). sell a limited amount of merchandise that enhances the visitors’ experiences, including The cooperat ing associat ion would sell health and safety-related items. The ferry educational and interpretive merchandise and air taxi concessioners would have related to the interpretive themes of the park exclusive rights to any day use commercial in accordance with their cooperative t ours that begin or end wit hin park agreement. boundaries.

72 Alternative D

PARK OPERATIONS NPS staff would maintain most of the AND FACILITIES facilities in the park, although facilities assigned to concessioners would have A high level of patrolling of visitor use facility maintenance included in their would occur in the natural/ cultural zone and contracts. the research natural area zone due to the permit system and commercial tour A reservat ion system would be est ablished operations proposed. To conduct/manage for the campground on Garden Key to research and survey/ monitor resources, NPS ensure that visitor expectations were met. st aff would expend a moderat e to high amount of effort . PARK ENTRANCE FEE Resource prot ect ion and int erpret ive training of all commercial operators would be A park entrance fee would be instituted to required, calling for a moderate to high help support the additional costs incurred for amount of effort by NPS st aff. All privat e managing carrying capacities, visitor safety boaters obtaining permits would receive and enjoyment, resource protection education in resource protection, which activities, and monitoring. (The authority to woul d require a moderat e to high amount of charge fees may end; however, the park effort by NPS staff. NPS staff would would charge an entrance fee as long as this conduct most tours of t he fort , although authority exists.) t rained commercial staff would conduct some. Visitor information would be available at a new contact station in Key West, requiring NPS staff commitment.

73 ALTERNATIVE E

ALTERNATIVE E = The servicewide The parkwide manage- The act ions described below mandates and policies + ment actions + that support the concept for this particular alternative

OVERALL CONCEPT research natural area. The historic preservat ion/adapt ive use zone would be Under this alternative, the majority of the applied to Garden Key (Fort Jefferson), and park would be desi gnat ed as a research woul d ext end outwards for a radius of 1 natural area and managed accordingly, with nautical mile to encompass surrounding primary emphasis on resource prot ect ion waters, including those around Bush and and conservation (see Alternative E map). Long Keys. The central portion of Logger- The alternative recognizes the paramount head Key, where the historic lighthouse and importance of preserving the park’s near- adjacent buildings are located, would also be pristine and fragile ecological resources and designated historic preservation/adaptive takes steps to closely direct visitor activities use. The remainder of Loggerhead Key, t hat could result in resource degradat ion. Bush, Middle and East Keys would be zoned Most visit or use would be highly st ruct ured research natural area, except during critical through commercial service providers. The bird and sea turtle nesting/hatching seasons goal for commercial service operations when special protection zoning would be woul d be t o be self-cont ained, thus reducing selectively applied and public access would the strain on the limited park facilities. . be prohibited. Hospital and Long Keys, and P rivat e boat ers would moor at Garden Key a rare elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) and join tour operations. The types and community near the Long Key/Bush Key levels of visit or use would be managed t o t idal channel, would be desi gnat ed special prot ect resources and t he qualit y of the protection zones year-round. The map visitor experiences. The total numbers of should be read in conjunction with the text visitors transported to the park by because the map does not show all details commercial operators would be consistent that are explained above. with the aggregated carrying capacity targets of individual visitor destinations (see table1). VIS ITO R EXP ER I ENC E

The research natural area zone in this To achieve these objectives, visitation would alternative would be compatible with the be st rict ly managed throughout most of the ecological reserve that is proposed by the park to reduce or avoid the adverse effects National Oceanic and Atmospheric of park visitors on the fragile resource base. Administration for the Florida Keys Overnight private boaters would need a National Marine Sanctuary, having the same permit. The numbers of visitors allowed in goals and subse quent constraint s on fishing. cert ain areas at any given t ime, rest rict ions on the size of boats, limitations on arrival times, etc. would be according to the MANAGEMENT ZONING carrying capacity determinations for each area. A park entrance fee would be charged. As shown on the Alternative E map, the No recreat ional fishing would be allowed majority of the park would be zoned a

74 Alternative E

Alternative E

Map, one page

75 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

back of map

76 Alternative E in t he research nat ural area. Also in the to receive education and interpretation at the research natural area, commercial boat Key West docking facilities, while en route operat ors would be required t o use mooring to the park, at Fort Jefferson, and at all com- buoys, and anchoring would be prohibit ed. mercial tour sites. All visitors would have Overnight anchoring/mooring would be access to basic park orientation and resource allowed only in the historic preservation/ protection education by NPS staff or conces- adaptive use zone around Garden Key. sion operator. Visitors would also receive the benefit of new information coming to Although a variety of challenging activities light as a result of research activities of park woul d be available to park visit ors, most scientists and investigators. would find a highly structured experience as part of the guided t ours. Visit or uses on and under the wat er would be highly direct ed RESOURCE PROTECTION and monit ored by NPS and concession staff in this alt ernat ive. Opport unit ies for individ- In most of the park, except within the his- ual discovery or choice of activities would toric preservation/adaptive use zone, the be limit ed and would inst ead fall more under resource prot ect ion strat egy would be t o t he prerogat ive of the t our operat or/guide. maintain the park’s near-pristine, intact ecosystem. There would be extremely low Visit or uses on Garden and Loggerhead tolerance for impacts of recreational use on Keys would be highly st ruct ured under this marine or terrestrial resources, and visitor alternative. The visitor experience would be t ravel and behavior would be highly regula- enhanced by limiting the size of tour groups t ed. Through the Nat ional Park Service and and the number of people at the swim beach t hrough concessioners, visitors would and moat wall. On the remaining keys, a receive a high level of education about staff member would always accompany resource prot ect ion issues. This would visitors. include appropriate behavior in and around sensitive natural and cultural resources, Visitors would occasionally encounter NPS appropriate boat handling and navigation, personnel, but most visit ors would more and the benefit s of cont rols and regulat ions. frequent ly encount er concessioner or tour Resource prot ect ion educat ion would be operator staff. Nevertheless, because incorporated into most recreational visit at ion would be dispersed t hroughout the activities, and those receiving private boat park, ample opportunities for quiet and permits would receive such education as a solit ude would be expect ed for all visit ors. part of the permitting process.

Because this alternative places a premium Concession services and restrictions on pri- on resource prot ect ion, the int egrity of t he vat e boat travel would st rict ly cont rol all resources likely to be encount ered would be visitor use outside of the historic preserva- high, which in turn would enhance the over- t ion/adapt ive use zone and would direct use all quality of the visitor experience. The to nonsensitive resources. Anchoring would trade-off of a highly structured visitor be prohibited throughout the park to avoid experience would be the opportunity to indiscriminat e damage to marine resources. experience relatively unaltered natural Although private boaters could still come to landscapes and seascapes, with little likeli- the park, to help protect the resources they hood of encountering other groups or other woul d be required t o moor at fixed buoys visible/audi ble int rusions on t he nat ural and use concession tour boat s for intrapark environment. transportation. Buoys would be placed only in areas where human use would pose little A high-quality experience would be further risk of resource damage. enhanced by many opport unit ies for visitors

77 ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING TH E PROPOSED ACTION

With maximum protection of the park’s to provide both annual site assessments and near-pristine ecosystems and intact cultural long-term detailed assessments for selected resources, the park would provide outstand- locations. As needed, more frequent assess- ing opportunities for scientific research. All ment s would evaluat e report s of diver im- research within the research natural area pacts, conditions following storms, etc. Site would be nonmanipulative. Some sampling research would be conduct ed in accordance woul d be allowed, but no change in resource with approved research designs that support condition would be permitted. Manipulative park management objectives. Archeological research would be allowed elsewhere where research and investigations would meet consistent with park purposes and an applicable NPS standards and would have approved plan. minimal sit e impact s. Informat ion would cont inue to be compiled in the GIS dat abase. Systematic, scheduled monitoring would document changes in species and com- The park would also implement measures to munities to provide direction for resource enhance site protection. Diving would be management and research. Monitoring and permitted only in approved areas by means research would be conduct ed on impact s on of mooring buoys and other methods. Visi- resources from visitor use, such as the affect tors would be directed away from sensitive on coral reefs from anchoring or concen- site locations, and remote sensing surveil- t rat ing visit or use wit h mooring buoys. lance systems would assist park patrol Ot her monit oring act ions would include efforts to protect significant sites. determining population and biodiversity of marine and terrestrial species. COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Submerged Cultural Resource Strategy Air access would be provided by a single concession contract with the same limits as The NPS Submerged Resources Center has described in alt ernat ives C and D. Wat er undertaken a comprehensive archeological access, intrapark transportation, and tours survey and invent ory of submerged sit es woul d be provided as described in alt erna- within the park. The project began in 1992 tives C and D. The activities, operations, with the compilation and assessment of facilities, and conditions described in alter- natural and cultural resource data that nat ives C and D would also be applicable in provided the foundat ion for development of this alternative. There would be no commer- the survey research design. GIS (geographic cial use authorizations issued in this alterna- informat ion syst em) comput er applicat ions t ive. Recreat ional fishing would not be were incorporated into the survey permitted in the park due to the extensive methodology. The project is a model for a use of the research natural area zone, and the wi de-area survey of submerged NPS areas. concessioner would offer all wildlife and birdwatching tours. Unless sailing excur- Using remot e sensing magnet omet er sions were provided in the concession methods, surveys have been completed for contract, they would not occur in the park. more than 95% of the park’s waters at depths of less than 30 feet. The technique was designed to detect ferrous metal objects, PARK OPERATIONS indicating potential site locations. Survey AND FACILITIES coverage of the entire park waters at all depths will eventually be completed. A moderat e to high level of NPS st aff and resources would be required t o manage and A comprehensive and multidisciplinary maintain facilities such as the dock, camp- monitoring program would be implemented ground, fort, mooring buoys, and sanit ary

78 Alternative E facilities. The dock at Garden Key or PARK ENTRANCE FEE alternative docking facilities would be required accommodate private boaters who A park entrance fee would be instituted to leave their boats to go on a commercial tour. help support the additional costs incurred for A moderate to high NPS interpretive staff managing carrying capacities, visitor safety effort would be required t o train concession and enjoyment, resource protection employees and conduct fort tours. A activities, and monitoring. (The authority to moderat e to high NPS patrol effort would be charge fees may end; however, the park required t o prot ect resources and monitor would charge an entrance fee as long as this activities due to the structured concession authority exists.) services. Additional law enforcement staff woul d not be required due t o the highly structured experiences planned.

79 MITIGATION MEASURES

Under any alternative, certain measures measures intended to protect water quality woul d be t aken to mit igat e, to the degree and marine life and wildlife from the effects possible, impact s that might or would occur of sediment at ion, turbidit y, and noise would because of actions proposed. The following be carried out during construct ion. The describes t hese mit igat ion measures. construct ion work area would be restrict ed to the minimum area needed, and direct dist urbance would be avoided t o the ext ent CULTURAL RESOURCES possible. Construct ion pract ices would be designed to have minimal impact on sensi- Although no adverse effects on cultural re- tive areas and to avoid these areas to the sources would be ant icipat ed from any of extent possible. Special care would be taken the undertakings proposed in these alterna- to avoid spills when using and handling t ives, current ly unknown cult ural resources fuels and lubricat ing oils. Construct ion noise might be discovered during project woul d be kept to a minimum to avoid construction (e.g., perhaps in the vicinity of dist urbing wil dlife, and construct ion act ivi- t he boat dock should t hat struct ure be t ies would not occur during bird and t urt le extended). Should archeological resources nesting periods. be discovered, work in that locat ion would st op unt il the resources were properly recorded by the National Park Service and TRA F FIC evaluated under the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. If (in Construction activities involving rehabilita- consultation with the Florida state historic tion of a building for the Key West multi- preservation officer) the resources were agency visitor facility would be conducted determined eligible, appropriate measures in a manner that would ensure the least woul d be implement ed either to avoid possible restriction of traffic from construc- further resource impacts or to mitigate the tion vehicles. Safety and convenience of the loss or dist urbance of the resources. general public would be provided at all times.

MARINE LIFE AND WILDLIFE VIS ITO R EXP ER I ENC E A survey for sensitive marine species would be completed before any construct ion The expansion of the visit or cent er would be activities took place for extending the dock. carried out during a period of the year when If any species of concern were identified in visitation is low. Before construction activi- the vicinity, appropriate mitigation measures t ies begin, the park st aff would develop an woul d be undert aken. interim operations plan to deal with staff and visitor issues during the expansion project. If a shore-based permanent design were selected for expanding the dock, mitigating

80 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF PARKWIDE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Parkwide Management Actions, All Alternatives Visitor Experience Visitor Facilities and Services: Continue commercial vessel, plane, or private boat access to the park. Continue most existing day use recreational activities, although fishing opportunities vary between alternatives (see table 4 below). Continue to require visitors to be self- sufficient. Establish interagency visitor center in Key West. Keep facilities on Loggerhead Key for administrative and research use. Expand visitor center on Garden Key into one or two additional casemates; allow no other expansion or adaptation of historic buildings. Educate visitors through a combination of nonpersonal interpretive services (exhibits, waysides, radio and television media, and publications) and personal services (daily ranger-led interpretive programs, visitor center staffing, and law enforcement monitoring. Interpretiv e Direction and Topics for the Park: Although opportunities for visitors to learn vary by alternative, all alternatives would emphasize understanding and appreciating the resources and appropriate use of those resources. Provide high-profile interpretive program that is directed toward orientation, education, and protection of resou rces. Provide access to resource interpretation and orientation before arrival and onsite. Emphasize understanding and appreciating the resources of the park and the appropriate use of those resources. (Studies of visitor behavior in other marine and coral reef parks have shown very positive results when visitors are given information about the effects of their behavior on park resources.) Interpret the major topics and subtopics, including the subtropical marine ecosystem, the pristine natural island environment, the human history and strategic locale of Dry Tortugas, the submerged cultural resources, the management of vegetative and wildlife populations, appropriate public use and enjoyment of the park, and park research activities. Interpretiv e Strategies: Take advantage of numerous opportunities to reach visitors onsite. Use interagency visitor center at Key West for pre-visit orientation. Expand opportunities for education/interpretation/information also at Fort Jefferson and en route to the park with commercial operators. Improve visitor information, facilities, and outreach programs. Develop a short video. Include other forms of outreach such as Chambers o f Commerce, marina operators, and the Internet. Expand Everglade’s environmental education program to the southern keys. Provide training for concession interpretive staff as commercial contracts are developed. Convey effective interpretive messages at the expanded Fort Jefferson visitor center. Develop other nonpersonal interpretive media such as exhibits on the Garden Key dock, a film, self-guided trails (surface and submerged), audio tours, and publications. Perhaps offer personal services. Strive to allow visitors to experience the park’s resources on their own terms. Resource Pro tection Natural Resources: Support establishment of ecological reserve adjacent to the park. Protect opportunity to see the pristine night sky and protect the natural soundscape. Cultural Resources: Continue use of historic preservation/adaptive use zone areas at Garden Key and the central portion of Loggerhead Key. Research: Establish supplemental support for park research, such as storage, in Key West. Adaptively use some structures as a modest support base for research in the park and the sanctuary. Require any additional in-park research facilities to be self-contained.

81 Park Operations Continue use of patrol and supply boats and dock space at Key West for these boats. Develop an agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard to use pier and storage structure across from this dock space. Seek office space in vicinity of this dock space, possibly in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Keep existing park-maintained employee quarters and utility systems in the fort. Park Boundary and Mooring System: Continue existing buoy navigational system. Boundary Adjustments: Continue existing boundary. Housing: Upgrade temporary and permanent employee housing in casemates with energy-efficient inserts that do not further degrade the historic walls of the casemates. Limit additional conversions or modifications for housing or administrative uses to the 2 ½ “fronts” or sides that have already been modified. Establish permanent employee housing ashore, with some personnel rotating to the park. Accom- modate research ers and other staff from agen cies doing research within the modified casemat es for the term of their needs as space permits. Visitor Center: Expand visitor center. Utilities: Do not expand utility system unless technological improvements make such expansion possible. Use renewable energy sources. Communication Systems at the Park: Continue to explore new technologies to improve communications, emphasizing improvements for visitor information and safety. Necessary and Appropriate Commercial Activities: Manage commercial activities within the capacity of the resources to withstand use.

82 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

ALTERNATIVE C: ALTERNATIVE A: ALTERNATIVE B: INITIATE RESEARCH ALTERNATIVE D: ALIG N ALTERNATIVE E: ALL CONTINUATION OF INITIATE CARRYING NATURAL AREA (RNA) RNA ZONE AND RNA ZONE EXCEPT CURRENT CAPACITIES, CONTINUE AND EXPAND SANCTUARY RESERVE; GARDEN KEY AND MANAGEMENT AND CONCESSIONS AND CUA COMMERCIAL SERVICES EXPAND COMMERCIAL EXPAND COMMERCIAL TRENDS PERMITS AS EXI STING (PROPOSED ACTION) SERVICES SERVICES Visitor Activities Recreational fishing, Same as alternative A. Swimming, snorkeling, Same as alternative C, Same as alternative D. Allowed swimming, snorkeling, diving, boating, wildlife except no private boaters diving, private boating, viewing, and fort tours. would be permitted in the wildlife viewing, and fort No recreational fishing research natural area. tours. allowed in the RNA zone. Private boaters would be permitted in the research natural area zone by permit. Tolerance for Low. Few controls are in Low. Visitor numbers at Very low. Carrying capa- Same as alternative C. Extremely low because o f Resource place to limit damage one place at one time city would be assigned to large RNA zone; Degradation from overuse or impacts would be set to control zones and areas to control otherwise, same as C. from visitor use. damage. Monitoring damage. Concession staff would be in place. would facilitate use in RNA zone. Use would be dispersed. Permits would be required for private boaters. Monitoring would be in place. Commercial Services Authorized by commer- Same as A. Authorized by two con- Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C cial use authorizations cession contracts for all except there would be no with capacity limits. day use travel to park and CUA permits. CUA permits for multiple- day tours that begin and end outside of park Entrance Fee No fee would be As authorized, an entrance Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. charg ed. fee would be instituted.

83 ALTERNATIVE C: ALTERNATIVE A: ALTERNATIVE B: INITIATE RESEARCH ALTERNATIVE D: ALIG N ALTERNATIVE E: ALL CONTINUATION OF INITIATE CARRYING NATURAL AREA (RNA) RNA ZONE AND RNA ZONE EXCEPT CURRENT CAPACITIES, CONTINUE AND EXPAND SANCTUARY RESERVE; GARDEN KEY AND MANAGEMENT AND CONCESSIONS AND CUA COMMERCIAL SERVICES EXPAND COMMERCIAL EXPAND COMMERCIAL TRENDS PERMITS AS EXI STING (PROPOSED ACTION) SERVICES SERVICES Ability of Visitors to Most visitors would be Most visitors would be Ferry concessioner would Same as alternative C Same as alternative D. Visit Multiple limited to Garden Key. limited to Garden Key. be required to offer oppor- except that all visits to Locations in the Park tunities to visit selected destinations in the sites throughout park. research natural area zone Private boaters would would be by guided tour need to obtain permits for only (no permits for activities throughout the private boats would be park, including the allowed). research natural area zone. Opportunity for High (for private boaters) High (for private boaters) High High Moderate Challenge/Adventure to low (for tour visitors) to low (for tour visitors) Opportunity for Low Low Very high Very high Very high Solitude Noise Levels for Moderate, especially Same as alternative A. Very low except at fort. Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C. Visitors from boats and other visitors. Permits for Private No No Yes Yes Yes Boaters Required? Mooring/Anchoring Anchoring permitted Anchoring would be No anchoring would be No anchoring would be Same as D. throughout park. permitted throughout permitted in research permitted in the research Overnight anchoring park. Overnight natural area zone only; natural area zone. woul d be permitt ed anchoring would be mooring would be Mooring would be only around Garden permitted only in the permitted in the research permitted in the research Key. historic preservation/ natural area zone by natural area zone only for adaptive use zone. permit only. Overnight the concessioner. Over- anchoring would be night anchoring would be permitted only in the permitted only in the historic preservation/ historic preservation/ adaptive use zone. adaptive use zone. Encounters with High (for tour visitors) to High (for tour visitors) to Moderate at Garden Key. Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C. Others low (for private boaters) low (for private boaters) Low at other destinations.

84 ALTERNATIVE C: ALTERNATIVE A: ALTERNATIVE B: INITIATE RESEARCH ALTERNATIVE D: ALIG N ALTERNATIVE E: ALL CONTINUATION OF INITIATE CARRYING NATURAL AREA (RNA) RNA ZONE AND RNA ZONE EXCEPT CURRENT CAPACITIES, CONTINUE AND EXPAND SANCTUARY RESERVE; GARDEN KEY AND MANAGEMENT AND CONCESSIONS AND CUA COMMERCIAL SERVICES EXPAND COMMERCIAL EXPAND COMMERCIAL TRENDS PERMITS AS EXI STING (PROPOSED ACTION) SERVICES SERVICES Level of Moderate; some Same as alternative A. High, especially on RNA Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C. Interpreta tion orientation on ferry tour. zone tours and when Fort tours would be obtaining permits for available. private boats. Level of Resource Intermittent Systematic monitoring of Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Monitoring speci fic resou rce indica- tors and standards.

Level of Visitor Use High need but limited High Moderate Low to moderate Low Patrols staffing

A matrix summarizing and comparing the impacts of implementing the various alternative management plans is given below.

85 TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

This table is a brief comparison of the alternative-specific impacts. For information on topics such as the cumulative, unavoidable, irreversible/irretrievable impacts, please refer to the narrative text.

IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES Essential and Unique Habitats Coral The current high levels of Management tools available The introduction of a This level of RNA zone The creation of an RNA Reef s unrestricted boat access and under alternative B would research natural area zone in protection would provide a zone for essentially the use within all areas of the control the maximum num- the park would significantly significant increase in entire park would almost park under this alternative ber of visitors in certain reduce the short- and long- habitat quality compared to eliminate the short-and long- would continue to cause areas of the park. If in the term adverse impacts on alternative A. The aquatic term adverse impacts on major short-and long-term unrestricted areas established coral reefs within that zone. habitats outside the coral reefs. Protection of at- adverse localized impacts on standards for resource boundaries of the research risk elkhorn and staghorn coral reefs. quality for the management This level of RNA zone natural area zone would still coral formations in the zone were exceeded, protection would provide a face moderate to major long- Long-Key-Bush Key Current levels of unrestricted additional use restrictions significant increase in term adverse impacts due to channel would increase access to coral reefs, particu- would be established to habitat quality compared to use by boaters, fishermen, through special protection larly reefs in shallow areas, prevent further impairment alternative A, and would scuba divers, snorkelers, and zoning. by fishermen, scuba divers, of these resources. protect several extraordinary swimmers. Protection of at- snorkelers, and swimmers coral reef formations (e.g., risk elkhorn and staghorn This level of RNA zone result in moderate levels of Because alternative B Loggerhead Forest). This coral formations in the protection would provide a long-term adverse impacts provides no research natural increased protection would Long-Key-Bush Key significant increase in on the reefs. The continua- area zone protection to the have a beneficial impact on channel would increase habitat quality compared to tion of these use patterns park’s essential and unique reef formation and through special protection alternative A. would allow stress and dam- habitats, this alternative associated aquatic life in the zoning. age accumulation in con- would provide little research natural area. junction with boat damage. improvement over current Aquatic habitats outside this Because alternative A conditions, but would zone would continue to face provides no RNA zone enhance protection from the moderate to major long-term protection to the park’s impacts of future increased adverse impacts Protection essential and unique use. Protection of at-risk of at-risk elkhorn and habitats, this alternative elkhorn and staghorn coral staghorn coral formations in would continue to provide formations in the Long-Key- the Long-Key-Bush Key no improvement over current Bush Key channel would channel would increase conditions or protection increase through special through special protection from future increased use. protection zoning. zoning.

86 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E Sea Grass Beds The current high levels of Same as Coral Reefs above. Same as Coral Reefs above. Same as Coral Reefs above. Same as Coral Reefs above. and Hardbottom unrestricted boat use and Communities access within all areas of the park under alternative A would continue to cause major short- and moderate long-term adverse localized impacts on sea grass beds and hardbottom co mmu nit i es . Sand Bottoms Minor short-term impacts Same as Coral Reefs above Same as Coral Reefs above. Same as Coral Reefs above. Same as Coral Reefs above. would occur when boats are run over shallow areas, causing increased turbidity in surrounding areas. Future increases in boat use would pose moderate short-term impacts because there are no restrictions on boat use or access under this alternative. Terrestrial Unmonitored use of Improved monitoring of the Monitored and/or restricted Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C, but Habitats terrestrial habitats for use of terrestrial habitats for access to much of the for most of the park. picnicking, camping, picnicking, camping, wildlife terrestrial habitat and the use wildlife viewing, walking, viewing, walking, etc. would of guided tours would etc. would likely continue to reduce some of the major provide increased protection cause major short-term and short-term and moderate long- to land-based resources moderate long-term term deterioration of island compared to alternative A. flora due to these uses. If deterioration of island flora. established standards for The prevention of any The restriction of any further resource quality for the further facility construction management zone were construction of facilities, would provide some level of exceeded, added use restric- except dock expansion, and protection to the terrestrial tions would be established to the shifting of visitor loads resources by preventing the prevent further impairment of to commercial services major damage caused by these resources. The preven- would provide increased such an undertaking. tion of any further facility protection to the essential construction would provide habitats of the park, further some level of protection to the decreasing long-term t errest ri al resou rces by adverse impacts. preventing the major damage caused by such an undertaking.

87 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E Fishery Resources Exploited Current levels of exploita- Current levels of The research natural area The research natural area Alternative E would protect Reef Fish tion would continue to result exploitation would continue would provide greatly would provide greatly nearly 100% of the reef fish in long-term major adverse to result in short- and long- increased levels of increased levels of species in the park and thus impacts on the exploited reef term major adverse impacts protection for about 88% of protection for about 80% of provide stability to the fish stocks in the park, on the exploited reef fish the reef fish species found in the reef fish species found in community and excellent reducing the value of the populations in the park, the park and 97% of the the park and 83% of the protection to the exploited park to almost all users. As reducing the value of the species in the snapper- species in the snapper- reef fish populations reef fish stocks begin to park to almost all user grouper-grunt complex. grouper-grunt complex. (groupers, snappers, and collapse and become more groups, including fishermen, grunts). Implementing this rare, the diversity, scuba divers, and snorkelers. There would be a major There would be a major alternative would result in abundance, size, distribution, short-term and minor long- short-term and minor long- only minor long-term risks and balance of the reef fish term adverse impact on term adverse impact on of adverse impacts on those community would become fishing yields in the park; fishery yields taken in the populations due to fishing further degraded. Because however, these yields would park; however, these yields around the park. alternative A contains no be higher and more would be sustainable over research natural area zone, it sustainable over the long the long term. These larger With no fishing allowed in offers no further protection term. These larger fish could fish could leave the research most all of the park, fishery to the diversity of the reef leave the research natural natural area boundary at yields would be nearly fish community or protection area boundary at times, times, which would benefit eliminated. The presence of from increased impacts. which would benefit recreational trophy and substantially larger recreational trophy and commercial fishing yields in individual fish within the commercial fishing yields in waters adjacent to the park would benefit waters adjacent to the research natural area. recreational trophy and research natural area zone. commercial fishermen in Alternative D would provide waters adjacent to the park. Alternative C would provide excellent protection to the excellent protection to the exploited reef fish stocks exploited reef fish stocks (groupers, snappers, and (groupers, snappers, and grunts) and would result in grunts) and would result in only moderate long-term only moderate long-term risks of adverse impacts on risks of adverse impacts on the reef fish population due the population due to to expected fishing around expected fishing around the the research natural area. research natural area.

88 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E Other Species The nonexploited species of reef Because alternative B contains The creation of the research Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C. fish would be impacted indirect- no RNA zone, it offers no natural area would also provide ly, through habitat degradation further protection to the major short-term and long-term and the dynamics of the exploi- diversity, abundance, size, and benefits to the diversity, ted reef fishery, and directly distribution of the reef fish abundance, size, and distribution through accidental catches by community or protection from of unexploited and protected/ recreational fisherman. The deli- increased impacts. The threatened fish and invertebrate cate balance of the reef ecosys- combination of these factors, populations through the tem is easily upset by the im- under current levels of park protection of coral reef habitats pacts of habitat degradation and access and fishing mortality , and the elimination of selective fishing on key predator would result in major short- and accidental-catch mortality in the species. This combination of long-term adverse impacts on research natural area zone. factors, under current levels of these populations. park access and fishing mortal- ity, would continue to present major short- and long-term ad- verse impacts on these exploited & unexploited fish populations. Wildlife Resources Birds Although most birds and their Alternative B would slightly Measures to control access to Same as alternative C. Measures to control access to nesting sites are protected now, increase protection to the birds land-based environments in the land-based environments the level of human use and and their nesting sites in the research natural area through through guided tours under access in the park would park due to limiting guided tours under alternative C alternative E should continue to present major long- overcrowding in areas, should significantly reduce significantly reduce short-term term adverse impacts on the spreading out resource use, and short- and long-term adverse and long-term adverse impacts adult birds, because these uses applying management tools to impacts on bird nests and eggs. on bird nests and eggs. often result in death. The major limit visitor impacts after certain sources of degradation and/or management zone standards Eliminating fishing and Eliminating fishing and loss of nesting sites include have been reached. Application restricting boat use within the restricting boat use within disturbance by visitors, noise of the special protection zone to research natural area zone would almost the entire park would from planes and boats, exotic highly sensitive sites during greatly reduce the risks to birds nearly eliminate the risks to plant invasions, erosion, and critical nesting periods would that are caused by boating and birds that are caused by boating exotic rats that eat eggs and significantly limit adverse fishing. and fishing. young, resulting in major short- impacts. and long-term damages.

89 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E Turtles The current levels and access Same as Birds above. Measures to control access Same as alternative C. Measures to control access throughout the park of to land-based environments to land-based environments recreational boaters with Also, unlimited boater in the research natural area through guided tours under little knowledge of the area access to the park would still through guided tours under alternative E should would continue to result in present major short- and alternative C should significantly reduce short- major short- and long-term long-term adverse impacts significantly reduce short- term and long-term adverse adverse impacts on turtles on swimming turtles. and long-term adverse impacts on turtle nests and swimming in the park due to impacts on turtle nests and eggs. Eliminating fishing mortality from collisions eggs. and restricting boat use with boats and/or propellers. within the almost the entire Eliminating fishing and park would nearly eliminate Although much time and restricting boat use within the risks to swimming turtles effort is put into protecting the research natural area that are caused by boating nesting turtles and their zone would greatly reduce and fishing. nests, the current levels of the risks to swimming turtles visitor use, noise, and that are caused by boating unmonitored access to many and fishing. beach areas would continue to be a moderate short- and long-term threat to the nesting behaviors and nests of the turtles. Marine Current levels of boat use Alternative B would slightly Eliminating fishing and Same as alternative C. Eliminating fishing and Mammals and unrestricted access to all increase protection to the restricting boat use within restricting boat use within portions of the park, mari n e ma mmal s i n t h e park the research natural area the park would nearly particularly areas frequented due to spreading out zone would greatly reduce eliminate the risks to marine by manatees and coastal resource use and applying the risks to marine mammals mammals that are caused by dolphins, would continue to management tools to limit that are caused by boating boating and fishing. present major short- and visitor impacts after certain and fishing. long-term adverse impacts management zone standards on marine mammals from have been reached. How- collisions and propeller ever, the management zone contact, particularly for very standards allow some young and old individuals adverse impacts. Unlimited that are less mobile and less boater access to the park able to avoid collisions. would still present major short- and long-term adverse impacts on marine ma mmal s .

90 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E Environmental Setting Soundscape The current levels of The current levels of Visitor capacity limitations Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C. and Night visitation focused during visitation during periods of within areas, the reduction of Lighting certain periods of the year the year result in a moderate boat use, and controls on provide a moderate short- short-term adverse impact on noise levels) would ensure term adverse impact on the the natural sounds and night the protection of the natural soundscape and the lighting in the park. soundscape and opportuni- opportunities to see the night However, as levels of ties to see the night sky. Low sky in the park. Noise levels visitation increase, the tolerance for activities that also threaten successful application of management degrade the natural turtle and bird nesting. tools and standards (visitor soundscape and lighting in Visitor education and capacity limitations within the park would decrease compliance with rules would areas, the reduction of boat these impacts, as would mitigate these impacts use, and controls on noise education and compliance somewhat. As levels of levels) would ensure the with night sky and visitation increase, the protection of the night view soundscape protection current management plan of the sky and the natural regulations. would be insufficient to soundscape. control the escalation in light and noise pollution and would present a major short- term risk. Low tolerance for activities that degrade the natural soundscape and the natural lighting in the park would decrease these impacts, as would education and compliance with night sky and soundscape protection regulations. Wetlands There would be no impacts There would be no impacts Potential impacts would Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C. on wetlands. on wetlands. occur on the marine intertidal unconsolidated shore wetlands around Garden Key as a result of dock expansion. The extent of impacts cannot be determined at this time.

91 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E Water The water quality within the Water quality in the park In the research natural area, Same as alternative C. Restricted private boat use Q uality park constantly faces the always faces the potential of restricted private boat use throughout most of the park potential of a minor or major a minor or major oil or fuel would decrease the short- would greatly decrease the oil or fuel spill caused by spill caused by grounding of term risks to water quality short-term risks to water grounding of recreational recreational boats; this risk from fuel and oil spills due quality from fuel and oil boats, and this threat would continue under alter- to groundings and from spills due to groundings and constitutes a potential major native B. However, as visita- pollution (trash, waste from pollution (trash, waste short-term and moderate tion increases, applying disposal, etc.). disposal, etc.). The long-term adverse impact on management tools and restriction of any further the park. Under alternative standards (visitor capacity The restriction of any further construction of facilities, A, this threat would limitations in areas and the construction of facilities, except the dock expansion, continue. The restriction of reduction of boat use) would except the dock expansion, would provide increased any further construction of help decrease the risk to would provide increased protection of water quality. facilities would provide water quality. The restriction protection of water quality. increased protection of water on constructing facilities quality. would provide more protection of water quality. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources (e.g., Cultural resources would Cultural resources would Cultural resources would Cultural resources would shipwreck sites, historic receive moderate long-term receive major long-term receive major long-term receive major long-term structures, etc.) might be benefits by limiting visitor benefits by limiting visitor benefits by limiting visitor benefits by limiting visitor adversely affected by numbers in sensitive areas of numbers in sensitive areas of numbers in sensitive areas of numbers in sensitive areas, increasing park visitation if the park, adopting the Sub- the park, adopting the the park, adopting the Su- adopting the Submerged current staffing/ funding merged Cultural Resources Submerged Cultural bmerged Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Strategy, levels provide insufficient Strategy, and providing Resources Strategy, Strategy, requiring visitor requiring visitor permits, and protection. Proposed adequate staff to carry out requiring visitor permits, and permits, and adopting a re- adopting a widespread rehabilitation of the Fort and enforce resource pro- adopting a research natural search natural area zone (and research natural area zone. Jefferson visitor center and tection measures. Proposed area zone. Proposed prohibiting private boat ac- Proposed rehabilitation of staff/ administrative use rehabilitation of the Fort rehabilitation of the Fort cess in this zone). Proposed the Fort Jefferson visitor quarters, along with ongoing Jefferson visitor center and Jefferson visitor center and rehab of the Fort Jefferson center and preservation undertakings, staff/ administrative use staff/ administrative use visitor center and staff/ ad- staff/administrative use would have no adverse quarters, along with ongoing quarters, along with ongoing ministrative use quarters, quarters, along with ongoing effect on significant historic preservation undertakings, preservation undertakings, plus ongoing preservation preservation undertakings, properties. would have no adverse effect would have no adverse undertakings, would have no would have no adverse effect on significant historic effect on significant historic adverse effect on significant on significant historic properties. properties. historic properties. properties.

92 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE Increases in the number of Establishing maxi mum Establishing opportunities Same as alternative C Same as alternative C except park visitors could result in numbers of visitors at for tour visitors to go beyond except that prohibiting that prohibiting fishing and minor to moderate long-term specific sites and dispersing Garden Key and see/ experi- fishing and boating in the restricting boating in the park adverse impacts on the them more broadly would ence near-pristine resources, research natural area zone would have long-term visitor experience. NPS improve opportunities for solitude, tranquility, and would have long-term moderate adverse effects on interpretive programs would solitude, tranquility, challenge would be a long- minor adverse impacts on visitors seeking these still be conducted on a challenge, and adventure and term moderate to major visitors seeking these opportunities in the park. limited basis, especially in reduce crowding — a long- beneficial impact. Prohibi- opportunities in the park. Also, private boaters who contacting private boaters. term minor beneficial ting recreational fishing in currently might experience a Establishing a visitor contact impact. Establishing a visitor and requiring a permit for solitary remote marine facility in Key West would contact facility in Key West entering the research natural environment would have a major long-term would have a major long- area would have a long-term experience a moderate long- beneficial impact on the term beneficial impact on the minor effect on recreational term impact due to the loss of visitor experience. visitor experience. fishermen and a short-term freedom now available. Implementing interpretive Implementing interpretive minor adverse effect on and wayside exhibit plans and wayside exhibit plans some private boaters. Estab- would have major long-tem would have major long-tem lishing a visitor contact facil- benefits on the visitor benefits on the visitor ity in Key West, educating experience. Visitors would experience. Visitors would visitors on tours, and benefit from enhanced benefit from increased requiring private boaters to information as a result of information as a result of have a permit would have a NPS coordination with other NPS coordination with other major long-term beneficial south Florida planning south Florida planning impact on the visitor experi- efforts. efforts. ence. Implementing interpre- tive and wayside exhibit plans would have major long-tem benefits on the visi- tor experience. Visitors would benefit from enhanced information as a result of NPS coordination with other south Florida planning efforts. Future fishermen would benefit from the establishment of a zone that would improve spawning population.

93 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E IMPACTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Implementing alternative A Implementing alternative B Implementing alternative C Same as alternative C Implementing alternative E would have negligible would have negligible effects would have negligible effects on except that concessioner would have negligible effects on effects on county and re- on county or regional county or regional tourism or could increase income by county or regional tourism or recreational opportunities. recreational opportunities. gional tourism or recrea- tourism or recreational Establishing the visitor contact picking up private boaters Establishing the visitor contact tional opportunities. opportunities. Establishing facility in Key West might and taking them into the facility in Key West might Establishing the visitor the visitor contact facility in attract more visitors to Key research natural area. attract more visitors to Key contact facility in Key West Key West might attract more West, resulting in minor long- West, resulting in minor long- might attract more visitors to visitors to Key West, term benefits for the county’s term benefits for the county’s Key West, resulting in minor resulting in minor long-term economy. Awarding a conces- economy. Awarding a conces- long-term benefits for the benefits for the county’ s sions contract to one ferryboat sions contract to one ferryboat county’s economy. Impacts economy. Limiting use for business and one seaplane business and one seaplane on commercial use carrying capacity and business would be a long-term business would be a long-term major economic benefit to those major economic benefit to those authorization holders and resource protection purposes businesses and a long-term businesses and a long-term major charter fishing operators could decrease the level of major adverse impact on current adverse impact on current would be anticipated to be commercial use in the park, operators who were not awarded operators who were not awarded minor. with a proportional reduction the contracts. Establishing the contracts. Establishing in some operators’ income. intrapark transportation would intrapark transportation, Impacts on charter fishing provide added revenue oppor- restricting private boat use, and operators would be minor. tunities for the concessioner and permitting the concessioner to more employment opportunities provide all commercial services in the county. Charter fishing would provide additional operators could experience a revenue opportunities for the minor reduction in revenues concessioner and more employ- from eliminating recreational ment opportunities in the county. fishing from the research natural Charter fishing operators and area of the park. However, other other current CUA operators opportunities would be available could experience a minor for charter fishing operators in reduction in revenues because of other nearby waters. The cumu- the requirement for all activities lative impacts of establishing no- in the park to be done through fishing areas would have the two concessioners. The moderate long-term beneficial cumulative impacts of impacts on marine populations, establishing no-fishing areas recreational and commercial would have moderate long-term fishing, and the regional beneficial impacts on marine economy. populations, recreational and commercial fishing, and the regional economy.

94 IMPACT ALTERNATIVE A — NO ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C — TOPIC ACTION PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E IMPACTS ON LAND USE The land exchange for the Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. facility in Key West would not conflict with any known land use plans or regulations. Therefore, the impacts on land use of implementing this alternative would be minor. IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES Implementing alternative A Imp l emen tin g alt ern at iv e B Imp l emen tin g alt ern at iv e C Same as alternative C. Same as alternative C except would have long-term would have long-term would have long-term that NPS effort to manage moderate adverse impacts on moderate beneficial impacts on moderate to high adverse the commercial services park operations and facilities park operations as a result of impacts on park operations program would be further in terms of the staff’s ability increasing staff numbers and due to establishing visitor increased and implementing to meet the demands of establishing visitor capacities capacities and increasing staff and maintaining the mooring increasing visitor numbers. at selected park sites. Installing numbers. More patrols would system would be a major Installing energy-efficient energy-efficient insets in the be required. Operations would impact on park operations casemates, improving the be more efficient and safe. The insets in the casemates, under this alternative. utilities and communications burden on the park’s limited improving the utilities and systems, providing adequate facilities would be eased with communications systems, office and storage space, using a concession self-contained providing adequate office renewable energy resources, ferry operation. Using and storage space, using and dispersing pre-visit mooring buoys or other renewable energy resources, information would have major devices would be labor and dispersing pre-visit long-term beneficial impacts intensive and require special information would have on park operations and equipment, knowledgeable major long-term beneficial facilities. Using mooring personnel, and a dedicated impacts on park operations buoys or other devices would cyclic budget — a moderate to and facilities. Visitor be labor intensive and require high adverse impact. facilities would not special equipment, Awarding concession accommodate all visitors knowledgeable personnel, and contracts would increase NPS during peak periods. a dedicated cyclic budget — a staff time needed to manage minor adverse impact under and monitor the commercial this alternative. services program. Concessioners would provide a park funding source.

95 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND PLANNING

Nat ural resource management programs management — educat ing visit ors to reduce woul d be based on research coordinat ed resource damage. However, the great er goal with the Florida Keys National Marine of interpretation is to provide visitors with Sanctuary, the state, the U.S. Fish and Wild- an understanding and appreciat ion of the life Service, the U.S. Biological Service, and significance of Dry Tortugas National Park, others. Priorities for research would be its resources, and the roles of those based on the park’s primary purpose to pre- resources in the ecosystem, history, and the serve and prot ect the nat ural, historic, world. Beyond that, an overlying role is to scenic, marine, and scientific values of the actively contribute to increasing a scien- area while balancing opportunities for tifically, historically, and culturally literate people to learn from them and enjoy and be society — a constituency that supports and inspired by them. To prevent significant understands the value of preservation and long-term adverse impacts in the park, the conservation. The future of Dry Tortugas following topics would require more study: National Park depends on not only responsi- ble management, but also an informed and ƒ threatened or endangered plants and involved public. Interpretation is a NPS tool animals and their habitats that fosters public awareness and apprecia- ƒ wat er qualit y and pot ent ial sources of tion of the natural and historical features of pollution the parks, promotes an understanding of ƒ long-term monitoring of impacts of ecological concepts and relevance of human use on resources historical knowledge, and instills a sense of ƒ long-term monitoring of impacts of stewardship towards the national park natural forces on resources system, the earth, and all of its inhabitants. ƒ refinement of indicator species and communities The following plans and document s might ƒ effects of recreational fishing in the be completed to help implement the recom- zo n es in wh ich it is allo wed mendations of this management plan ƒ soundscape management ƒ effect s of est ablishment of areas in ƒ concessions contract prospectus which no fishing is allowed ƒ wat er resource management plan (in- ƒ historic structure reports cludes wat er qualit y monitoring ƒ cultural landscape reports program plan) ƒ archeological research design and data ƒ research plan recovery reports ƒ veget at ion management plan ƒ submerged cult ural resources plan ƒ rare, threatened, and endangered species management plan There is an unusually strong emphasis on ƒ park interpretation plan public education and interpretation in Dry ƒ collections management plans Tort ugas Nat ional Park’s enabling legisla- ƒ park administrative history tion, significance statements, and mission ƒ visitor use management plan goals. The first thing stated in the park’s ƒ exhibit plans (an Everglades/Dry Tortu- enabling legislation (PL 102-525) is that the gas wayside exhibit plan is in progress) park has been established “to preserve and ƒ cultural resource management plan, with protect for the education, inspiration, and submerged cult ural resources enjoyment of present and future genera- component t ions…” Within t he management purposes ƒ soundscape management plan identified in the legislation, interpretation is ƒ resource management plan t wice ment ioned. In addit ion t o historical, ƒ regulat ions cultural and natural values, two of the park’s ƒ monitoring programs that need to be statements of significance are directly tied to initiated to measure the condition of the its educational value. resources and visitor experiences to ensure that the desired conditions stated Interpretation has many roles in a national in t he plan are being met . park. Interpretation is a form of resource

96 AC TIO NS CO NS IDER ED B U T ELI MINA TED FRO M FUR TH ER S TUDY

The fisheries protection practice called are successful, catch and release in the “ cat ch and release” — t hat is to catch fish natural/cultural and the historic preservation/ but to return them to the water immediately, adaptive use zones is unnecessary. This was considered but rejected as a protection management action was therefore eliminated strategy. Data show that injury and mortality from further study. rates to fish caught and then released do not support the intent and goals of the research There were no other actions that were within natural area zone. If management in this the scope of this plan that were considered zone and in the similarly managed areas of and then eliminated. the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

97 98 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

99 100 NATURAL RESOURCES

Dry Tortugas National Park, a 100-square- dispersion of larvae to suitable downstream mile (250-square-kilometer) area about 70 coastal bays and near-shore habitats. These miles (118 kilometers) is west of Key West, nursery areas in Biscayne and Everglades Florida. The park is a unique tropical marine National Parks and Florida Bay provide environment of national significance, sanctuary for spiny lobster and many renowned for its productive coral reef juvenile fishes that occupy reefs as adults, ecosystem, diverse and abundant nat ural including barracuda, hogfish, lobst ers, pink resources, and spectacular scenic beauty. shrimp, many grunt s, and most snappers and The park is comprised of seven atoll-like groupers (Chester and Thayer 1990). The tropical islands that are in an elliptical region also provides essent ial food resources pattern. The elevation of land masses range for a host of key predator-prey interactions from sea level to 82 feet (25 meters) below in the coral reef ecosystem, and for support sea level in the park — part of the extension of migrating sea turtles, sea birds, marine of the Florida shelf. The Dry Tortugas mammals, and large fishlike mackerels, region extends westward from the tunas, and billfishes. Marquesas Keys to the southwest ern end of the Florida Keys, which is a 236-mile- (380- The unique biophysical environment of the kilometer-) long chain of about 1,200 Dry Tortugas National Park supports a rich islands that separates the shallow waters of base of nat ural resources, including an Florida Bay to the north from the Atlantic extraordinary diversity of essential and Ocean in the east and the Gulf of Mexico unique habit at s, fishery resources, wildlife and Straits of Florida in the west and south, resources, and environmental settings. As in respectively. the Florida Keys National Marine Sanc- tuary’s environmental impact statement, a The Tortugas region plays a critical role in summary of scient ific studies conduct ed at the function and dynamics of the larger t he park can be found in Schmidt and Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem. The Pikula’s annot at ed bibliography (NPS Florida Keys encompass many varied inter- 1997b). dependent habitats including subtropical embayments and lagoons, mangrove stands, coral islands, sponge and gorgonian and sea ESSENTIAL AND UNIQUE HABITATS grass beds, and coral reefs. The abundance, dist ribut ion, and product ivit y of many Coral Reefs natural resources, such as reef fishes, macroinvertebrates, soft and hard corals, sea Coral reefs are among t he most diverse and grasses, etc., are tightly linked to the biologically complex ecosystems on earth. oceanographic environment and biophysical These “rainforests of the sea” provide connections between these habitats. economic and environmental benefits to millions of people as areas of natural beauty and recreation, sources of food, jobs, Spawning migrations, oceanographic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and shoreline processes, and the life stages of many key protection. Now under threat from multiple reef species help to provide critical sources stresses that are overwhelming their natural of essential nutrients, foods, larvae, and resilience, coral reefs are deteriorating adult animals that support the region’s worldwide at alarming rates. An estimated productivity (Lee et al. 1994, Lindeman et 10% of the world’s reefs have already been al. 2000a). Oceanographic features such as lost and 60% are threatened by bleaching, gyres, eddys, and seasonal current reversals disease, and a variety of human activities (Lee et al. 1999) facilitate transport and including shoreline development, polluted

101 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT runoff from agricultural and land-use Other Underwater (Benthic) Habitats practices, ship groundings, overharvesting and destructive fishing practices, and global Ot her underwat er habit at s in the park climate change. Sustained downward trends include immense and relat ively diverse in coral reef healt h suggest that these ancient hardbottom communit ies of sponges and ecosystems are in peril. gorgonians, many of which are unique to the Tort ugas. Sea grasses provide unique links The coral reefs of the park and the Tortugas in nutritional cycles, cover that animals use region have some of the best developed and to avoid predators, and the sustained most luxuriant corals found in the Carib- production of debris that is essential to food bean. The Tortugas region has a full range web product ivit y. T he Tort ugas area has the of hard and soft corals with more than 75 highest diversity of sea grass species species, some of which are rare elsewhere compared to waters around the Florida Keys (Miller and Swanson 2000; table A1). In (Fourqurean et al. 1999). Many of these fact, some of the most pristine and vibrant habitats are extremely important to juvenile portions of the Florida Keys coral reef reef fishes. The park also contains large ecosystem are protected within the park’s areas of sand and mixed-hardbottom com- boundaries, and others are just out side park munit ies. T he dist ribut ion and abundance of boundaries on the Tort ugas Bank. A small these various communities are important community of elkhorn (Acropora palmata) considerat ions in resource management and and fused staghorn (Acropora prolifera) assessment. coral formations in the Long Key/Bush Key tidal channel is at risk of local extinction. This community is the only place in the Dry Un de rwa te r H a bit a t Di st ri bu ti on Tort ugas where elkhorn coral is found. The distribut ion of coral reef, hardbott om, The park and surrounding region contain and sea grass int erpret ed from aerial phot o- both deep and shallow reef formations that graphs and side-scan sonar are shown in support different fish faunas as well as figure B1 for bot h the park and the Tort ugas different life stages (larval, juvenile, and Bank. Within the park, a mixture of shallow- adult ). These different stages have different water sea grasses, deepwater bare sand, and dist ribut ion patt erns among habit at s. A hardbottoms with moderate shallow-water unique feat ure is the except ional deep coral patch and bank reef development prevail. reef resources of the area, e.g., “Sherwood The north and west areas of the Tortugas Forest” and “Loggerhead Forest.” These Bank form a mosaic of extensive, robust, luxuriant coral formations are exquisitely deepwater reefs adjacent to low-relief, hard- developed and may be the oldest living coral bott om and sand-covered areas (Bohnsack reefs found throughout the Americas (R.N. and McClellan 1998). The coral reef habitat Ginsburg, Professor of Marine Geology, is further broken down into four dist inct reef pers. comm., 1999). These formations types: patch reefs, fore reefs, reef flats, and provide excellent habitat for reef fishes and deep reefs (appendix F, table A2a). Each of lobst ers and are well known by fishermen t hese reef types is used different ially by the for their productivity. reef fish community. The distribution of reef t ype and sea grass, sand, and hardbott om These resources also play a vital role in communities for the park only is shown on South Florida’s efforts to recover and figure B2. Figure B3 presents community maintain a balanced and sustainable marine types with an overlay of the proposed action, ecosystem. However, observations of coral which shows that 10 of the 11 community disease outbreaks throughout the upper types are represented in the proposed Keys, coupled with declining water quality, alternative. The total area of each of these make coral reefs a particular concern (Porter park habitats, by depth category, is shown in and Meier 1992; Port er et al. 1994). t able A2b (appendix F). The deep reefs, Increased use and human contact may although not represent ed on the map of further diminish the qualit y and product ivit y figure B2 because they are too deep to be of corals to the regional ecosystem.

102 Natural Resources

Ta bl e A1 : List of stony coral, gorgonian, and sponge species sampled in the Florida Keys coral reef tract by NURC divers, 1998–99.

STONY CORALS (45 TAXA) Gorgonians (30 Taxa) Sponges (59 Taxa) Phylum Cnidaria Phylum Cnidaria Phylum Porifera Class Anthozoa Class Anthozoa Class Demospongeae Orders Scleractinia & Milleporina Subclass Octocorallia Agelas clathrodes Acropora cervicornis Briareum asbestinum Agelas conifera Acropora palmata Erythropodium caribaeorum Agelas dispar Agaricia agaricites Eunicea calyculata Agelas schmidti Agaricia fragilis Eunicea fusca Agelas wiedenmayaari Agaricia humilis Eunicea knightii Amphimedon compressa Cladocora arbuscula Eunicea laciniata Amphimedon viridis Colpophyllia natans Eunicea mammosa Anthosigmella varians Dendrogyra cylindrus Eunicea palmeri Aplysina archeri Dichocoenia stokesi Eunicea succinea Aplysina cauliformis Diploria clivosa Eunicea tourneforti Aplysina fistularis Diploria labyrinthiformis Gorgonia ventalina Aplysina fulva Diploria strigosa Muricea atlantica Aplysina lacunosa Eusmilia fastigiata Muricea elongata Callyspongia plicifera Favia fragum Muricea muricata Callyspongia vaginalis Isophyllastrea rigida Muriceopsis flavida Chondrilla nucula Isophyllia sinuosa Plexaura flexuosa Chondrosia sp Leptoseris cucullata Plexaura homomalla Cinachyra sp Madracis decactis Plexaurella dichotoma Clathria sp Madracis formosa Plexaurella grisea Cliona deletrix Madracis mirabilis Plexaurella nutans Cliona langae Manicina areolata Pseudoplexaura flagellosa Cliona sp (brown encrusting) Meandrina meandrites Pseudoplexaura porosa Cribochalina vasculum Millepora alcicornis Pseudoplexaura wagenaari Desmapsamma anchorata Millepora complanata Pseudopterogorgia acerosa Diplastrella megastellata Montastraea annularis (I) Pseudopterogorgia americana Dysidea etheria Montastraea faveolata (II) Pseudopterogorgia bipinnata Ectyoplasia ferox Montastraea franksi (III) Pseudopterogorgia rigida Erylus formosus Montastraea annularis spp Pterogorgia anceps Geodia neptuna Montastraea cavernosa Pterogorgia citrina Haliclona hogarthi Mussa angulosa Pterogorgia guadalupensis Halisarca sp Mycetophyllia aliciae Holapsamma helwigi Mycetophyllia danaana Iotrochota birotulata Mycetophyllia ferox Ircinia campana Mycetophyllia lamarckiana Ircinia felix Oculina diffusa Ircinia strobilina Porites astreoides Monanchora barbadensis Porites branneri Monanchora unguifera Porites divaricata Mycale laevis Porites furcata Neofibularia notilangere Porites porites Niphates digitalis Scolymia spp Niphates erecta Siderastrea radians Oligoceras hemorrhages Siderastrea siderea Pandaros acanthifolium Solenastrea bournoni Plakortis angulospiculatis Stephanocoenia michelinii Phorbas sp Pseudoceratina crassa Pseuoaxinella lunaecharta Ptilocaulis sp Rhaphidophlus venenosus Siphonodictyon Siphonodictyon siphonum Spheciospongia vesparium Spirastrella coccinea Strongylacidon sp Ulosa ruetzleri Verongula gigantea Verongula rigida Xestospongia muta

103 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

104 Figure B1: Spatial distribution of coral reef (red and pink), hardbottom (orange and yellow), and seagrass (green) habitats in the Dry Tortugas region interpreted from aerial photogrammetry and side-scan sonar (data sources: Florida Marine Research Institute and NOAA). Black dots indicate fish and habitat sampling sites from the 1999 NURC survey (Ault and Bohnsack 1999).

Natural Resources seen from aerial photos, are along the outer functioning of the broader Keys marine boundaries of the represented reef. environment (Bohnsack et al. 1994). The productive marine environment of the Deep reef areal extent was estimated based Tort ugas is also import ant to a host of other on bathymetry, shelf location, sampling, and import ant bait , pelagic, and reef fishery expert opinion. Notably, the most pro- resources (Meyer et al. 1983). Reef fishes nounced differences in habit at distribut ions can be used as sensitive indicators of in the Tortugas region occur from east to environmental stress, because during their northeast. migrations from coastal bays as juveniles to the coral reefs as adults they encounter most natural and human-induced stresses found Terrestrial Habitats across the ecosystem.

The terrestrial environment of the park The reef communit y can be divided int o the consists of seven islands that contain more following categories: (1) exploited than 200 species of plants and fauna; less (harvestable) reef fishes, such as snappers, than 50 of these species are native (NPS groupers, and grunt s; (2) exploit ed 1997a). The smaller keys, East, Bush, and macroinvertebrates such as pink shrimp, Long, have mainly native plants due to spiny lobst er, and queen conch; (3) limited visitation by large vessels and no unexploited prey including invertebrates, blennys, gobies, and the reef herbivore permanent habitation by humans. Garden community such as butt erflyfishes, Key contains a large percentage of damselfishes, surgeonfishes, and introduced plant species. All of the islands parrotfishes; (4) sharks and rays; (5) also contain beaches and associated migrating pelagic fishes such as kingfish, intertidal habitats. These unique coral and Spanish mackerel, dolphinfish, billfishes, sand island environments provide buffers to tuna, and tarpon; and (6) baitfish like inclement seas and shallow-water habitats, anchovy, sardine, herring, killifishes, and also provide critical shelter and mojarras, and scads that support much of the veget at ion resources for birds and t urt les. large migrat ing fishes and large piscivorous (fish-eating) reef fishes.

A comprehensive quant itat ive study of reef FISHERY RESOURCES fish resources and essent ial habit at s in the park and surrounding region was conduct ed Dry Tortugas National Park fishery through a cooperative effort of the resources play important ecological and University of Miami, the National Marine socioeconomic roles. The sheer number of Fisheries Service, the University of North different fishes (species) and fisheries Carolina at Wilmington, the Florida Keys (different kinds of fish communities and National Marine Sanctuary, the National human-related fishing activities) in this Park Service, and the National Oceanic and region is extraordinary. More than 300 Atmospheric Administration from late May t o mid-July 1999, covering an area of about species of reef fish have been identified in 350 square miles with 450 sites and more the park (table A3) (Longley and Hildebrand than 1,150 unique reef fish visual survey 1941, Ault and Bohnsack 1999). The scuba diver samples. The distribut ion of dist ribut ion and abundance of reef fish in diver sampling sites from the survey is coral reef environments is greater in the park shown in the previous figure B1. This data than outside the park (Bohnsack et al. 1994). was used to determine spatial density A number of important reef fishes and distributions of juvenile reef fish and the macroinvertebrates like groupers, snappers, distribution of the average length of spiny lobster, and pink shrimp have harvestable individuals in the exploitable substantial regional economic and ecological phase of the stock (e.g., Ault et al. 1998, Ault and Bohnsack 1999). value to the dynamics, productivity, and

111 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table A3: List of families (52) and species (238) of fishes observed in visual samples from the Florida Keys by NOAA and University of Miami divers, 1979–1998 (Bohnsack et al. 1999). About 200 of these species were observed in the 1999 visual census of the Dry Tortugas region.

Rhincodontidae Serranidae Carangidae Mullidae Labridae Ginglymostoma cirratum Diplectrum formosum Alectis ciliaris Mulloidichthys martinicus Bodianus pulchellus Carcharhinidae Epinephelus adscensionis Caranx bartholomaei Pseudopeneus maculatus Bodianus rufus Carcharhinus limbatus Epinephelus cruentatus Caranx crysos Pempheridae Clepticus parrae Sphyrnidae Epinephelus fulvus Caranx hippos Pempheris schomburgki Doratonotus megalepis Sphyma lewini Epinephelus guttatus Caranx latus Kyphosidae Halichoeres bivittatus Sphyma mokarran Epinephelus inermis Caranx ruber Kyphosus sectatrix Halichoeres cyanocephalus Dasyatidae Epinephelus itajara Decapterus macarellus Ephippidae Halichoeres garnoti Dasyatis americana Epinephelus morio Decapterus punctatus Chaetodiperus faber Halichoeres maculipinna Urolophidae Epinephelus striatus Elagatis bipinnulata Chaetodontidae Halichoeres pictus Urolophus jamaicensis Hypoplectrus chlorurus Seriola dumerili Chaetodon capistratus Halichoeres poeyi My lobatidae Hypoplectrus gemma Seriola rivoliana Chaetodon ocellatus Halichoeres radiatus Aetobatus narinari Hypoplectrus guttavarius Trachinotus falcatus Chaetodon sedentarius Hemipteronotus martinicensis Mobulidae Hypoplectrus indigo Lutjanidae Chaetodon striatus Hemipteronotus novacula Manta birostris Hypoplectrus nigricans Lutjanus analis Pomacanthidae Hemipteronotus splendins Elopidae Hypoplectrus puella Lutjanus apodus Centropye argi Lachnolaimus maximus Megalops atlanticus Hypoplectrus unicolor Lutjanus buccanella Holacanthus bermudensis Thalassoma bifasciatum Muraenidae Liopropoma eukrines Lutjanus cyanopterus Holocanthus ciliaris Scaridae Gymnothorax funebris Mycteroperca bonaci Lutjanus griseus Holocanthus tricolor Cryptotomus roseus Gymnothorax milaris Mycteroperca interstitialis Lutjanus jocu Pomacanthus arcuatus Nicholsina usta Gymnothorax moringa Mycteroperca microlepis Lutjanus mahogoni Pomacanthus paru Scarus coelestinus Gymnothorax saxicola Mycteroperca phenax Lutjanus synagris Pomacentridae Scarus coeruleus Gymnothorax vicinus Mycteroperca tigris Ocyurus chrysurus Abudefduf saxatilis Scarus croicensis Clupeidae Mycteroperca venenosa Pristipomoides aquilonaris Chromis cyanea Scarus guacamaia Harengula jaguana Paranthias furcifer Rhomboplites aurorubens Chromis enchrysurus Scarus taeniopterus Jenkinsia lamprotaenia Rypticus saponaceus Haemulidae Chromis insolata Scarus vetula Exocetidae Serranus baldwini Anisotremus surinamensis Chromis scotti Sparisoma atomarium Hemiramphus brasiliensis Serranus tabacarius Anisotremus virginicus Microspathodon chrysurus Sparisoma aurofrenatum Belonidae Serranus tigrinus Haemulon album Pomacentrus diencaeus Sparisoma chrysopterum Tylosurus crocodilus Serranus tortugarum Haemulon aurolineatum Pomacentrus fuscus Sparisoma rubripinne Atherinidae Priacanthidae Haemulon carbonarium Pomacentrus leucostictus Sparisoma viride Atherinomorus stipes Priacanthus arenatus Haemulon chrysargyreum Pomacentrus partitus Clinnidae Hypoatherina Priacanthus cruentatus Haemulon flavolineatum Pomacentrus planifrons Acanthemblemaria aspera harringtonensis Holocentridae Apogonidae Haemulon macrostomium Pomacentrus variabilis Acanthemblemaria chaplini Holocentrus adscensionis Apogon binotatus Haemulon melanurum Cirrhitidae Emblemaria pandionis Holocentrus coruscus Apogon psuedomaculatus Haemulon parra Amblycirrhitus pinos Hemiemblemaria simulus Holocentrus marianus Malacanthidae Haemulon plumieri Sphyraenidae Labrisiomus nuchipinnus Holocentrus rufus Malacanthus plumieri Haemulon sciurus Sphyraena barracuda Malacoctenus gilli Holocentrus vexillarius Echeneidae Haemulon striatum Sphyraena picudilla Malacoctenus macrops Myripristis jacobus Echeneis naucrates Sparidae Opistognathidae Malacoctenus triangulatus Ostichthys trachypoma Gerreidae Archosargus Opistognathus aurifrons Malacoctenus versicolor probatocephalus Gobiidae Eucinostomus argenteus Archosargus rhomboidalis Opistognathus whitehursti Paraclinus marmoratus Coryphopterus dicrus Gerres cinereus Calamus bajonado Blenniidae Paraclinus nigripinnis Coryphopterus eidolon Inermidae Calamus calamus Hypleurochilus Acanthuridae bermudensis Coryphopterus Inermia vittata Calamus penna Ophioblennius atlanticus Acanthurus bahianus glaucofraenum Coryphopterus personatus Sciaenidae Calamus proridens Scartella cristata Acanthurus chirurgus Gnatholepis thompsoni Equetus acuminatus Diplodus argenteus Balistidae Acanthurus coeruleus Gobiosoma evelynae Equetus lanceolatus Diplodus holbrooki Aluterus monoceros Bothidae Gobiosoma macrodon Equetus punctatus Lagodon rhomboides Aluterus schoepfi Bothus lunatus Gobiosoma oceanops Equetus umbrosus Ostraciidae Aluterus scriptus Bothus ocellatus Gobiosoma randalli Odontoscion dentex Lactophrys bicaudalis Balistes capriscus Tetradontidae Ioglossus calliurus Scombridae Lactophrys polygonia Balistes vetula Canthigaster rostrata Ioglossus helenae Scomberomorus cavalla Lactophrys quadricomis Cantherhines macrocerus Chilomycterus antennatus Microgobius carri Scomberomorus maculatus Lactophrys trigonius Cantherhines pullus Chilomycterus schoepfi Microgobius microlepis Scomberomorus regalis Lactophrys triqueter Canthidermis sufflamen Diodon holocanthus Callionymidae Aulostomidae Centropomidae Melichthys niger Diodon hystrix Paradiplogrammus bairdi Aulostomus maculatus Centropomus undecimalis Monacanthus hispidus Sphoeroides splengleri Fistularidae Scorpaenidae Monacanthus tuckeri Fistularia tabacaria Scorpaena plumieri

112 Natural Resources

The data was also used to determine the (Epinephelus itajara) and the Nassau spat ial dist ribut ion of diversity, abundance, grouper (Epinephelus striatus). size, and distribution of the entire reef fish community and the snapper-grouper-grunt complex. A total of 194 reef fish species Birds were seen t hroughout t he Dry T ort ugas region, with 141 of those seen in the park. About 300 migratory bird species occur in The snapper-grouper-grunt complex is South Florida that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife comprised of 35 species for the region, and Service is required t o prot ect and conserve 28 of those species reside in the park, under authorities such as the Fish and Wild- including the endangered and/or protected life Coordinat ion Act and the Migratory Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) and Bird Treaty Act. (See appendix G.) The Jewfish (Epinephelus itajara). seven small coral-sand islands at the park provide critical nesting and feeding habitats for subst ant ial numbers of sea birds, WILDLIFE RESO URCES including the white-tailed tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus), magnificent frigate Rare , Th reatene d, or bird (Fregata magnificens), masked bobby Endangered Animal Species (Sula dactylatra), red-foot ed booby (Sula leucogaster), brown pelican (Pelecanus The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation occidentalis), laughing gull (Larua Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife articilla), royal tern (Sterna maxima), Service were consulted regarding the sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), roseate presence of threatened, endangered, and tern (Sterna dougallii), soot y tern (Sterna special concern species that may occur in fuscata), least tern (Sterna antillarum), the park or are migrating species. According brown noddy (Anous stolidus), and black to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, five noddy (Anous minutus) (NPS 1994). The species of sea turtles may be found in the park affords unique opportunities for seeing waters of the park, and the loggerhead tropical seabirds, including the only (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia significant nesting colonies in the United mydas) sea turtles nest on park islands. In St at es for sooty and noddy terns and harbors addit ion, the West Indian manat ee the only frigate bird nesting colonies in the (Trichechus manatus) and a number of bird continental United States. species use the islands and waters within the park. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports there is no designated critical habitat Sea Turtles within park boundaries. (See appendix G for complete list of species in Monroe County.) The park area includes the most isolated and least dist urbed nesting habit at for several Endangered, threatened, or special concern endangered and threatened sea turtles in the species listed by the Florida Fish and Wild- United St at es. Loggerhead t urt les (Caretta life Conservation Commission as potentially caretta) are the most abundant species to occurring in or adjacent to Dry Tortugas nest in the Dry Tortugas and have the largest include one fish, seven amphibians and population size of any sea turtles in the reptiles, 18 bird species, three mammals, United States (NPS 1998). The earliest and one invertebrate (see appendix G). accounts of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida are from the Dry Tortugas The park is also home to several species of (Audubon 1926; Gifford 1934). Turtles were fish prot ect ed by the Nat ional Marine so abundant that bet ween 1858 and 1859 Fisheries Service, including the Jewfish more than 39,588 pounds of t urt le meat was consumed by soldiers stationed at Fort

113 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Jefferson. More current information reveals Wetlands that the park is one of the most significant Florida green turtle nesting colonies in the Wetlands are identified on the U.S. Fish and Caribbean (Meylan et al. 1995). During Wildlife Service’s National Wetland recent years of monitoring throughout the Inventory 7.5-minut e quadrangle map for the nesting season, a total of 1,652 turtle crawls Dry Tortugas area. The map classifies areas produced 728 nests and an estimated 58,958 around the islands in the park and large eggs (NPS 1998). Available evidence areas south of the fort and west of Logger- suggests that this population differs head Key primarily as marine subtidal and genet ically from other significant Caribbean intertidal wetlands. The marine system populations (Allard et al. 1994). Three other consists of the open ocean overlying the species of turtles are known from Florida continental shelf and its associated coastline. Keys wat ers that might be found in or near Marine habitats are exposed to the waves park waters on occasion. and currents of the open ocean, and the ebb and flow of oceanic tides is the primary determinant of whether the area is subtidal Marine Mammals (continuously submerged) or intertidal (exposed and flooded by tides). Large areas Nineteen species of marine mammals are of wetlands in the park are in the aquatic bed known from South Florida waters, and 10 class and rooted vascular subclass, also additional species may occur there, based on called sea grass beds, among ot her terms. st randings and sight ings in nearby wat ers Wetlands occurring primarily immediately (NPS 1998). Only two of the 19 species are around the islands are in the unconsolidated known to occur in the park from live, shore class and the irregularly exposed or nonstranded sightings — the bottlenose regularly flooded subclasse s. dolphin and the Florida manatee; anot her three species have been found stranded Small areas of estuarine subtidal and within the park or in nearby waters — intertidal wetlands occur in the northwestern (Fraser’s dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, portion of Garden Key and near Bush, Long and false killer whale (NPS 1998). The and East Keys. The estuarine system remaining species may occur or pass consists of deepwater tidal habitats and through park waters from time to time. adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually partially enclosed by land and have partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ENVIRO NMENTAL SETTING ocean. The ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff S oun ds ca pe /Nigh t Li ghti ng from the land. (Cowardin et al 1979)

The Dry Tort ugas Nat ional Park provides a very unique and rare nat ural sett ing due to Water Quality its remote location and remarkable environmental makeup. The remot e locat ion The lack of major sewage and runoff areas, of the park provides an ambience of extreme along with the dynamic ocean currents quiet and nat ural soundscapes, including a running through the park, provide fairly backdrop of migrat ing birds and the ocean. pollution-free waters for natural resources The distance from civilization also provides and human enjoyment . Result s of a long- a rare opportunity for people to experience term monitoring project conducted by the night sky without the interference of city Florida International University (Boyer and lights that dramatically inhibit the view of Jones, 2000) provide trends in water quality the stars. over the last decade in the western part of Florida Bay, an area that direct ly influences

114 Natural Resources the water quality around the park. During present) coral habitat stations on an annual the period of observation, the salinity basis, document ing coral diversit y and declined by 5.6 ppt (part s/t housand), most percent cover. The sanctuary’s coral reef likely due to increased average rainfall. monitoring program set up four permanent Turbidity has increased by a factor of 4 due coral sampling locations inside park waters most likely to the loss of sea grass coverage in 1999. During the last three years, FMRI and its stabilizing influence on the bottom scient ists have also not ed the abundance, and sediment s. Alt hough there was a signifi- size, and fecundity of spiny lobsters cant increase in chlorophyll a concentrations (Panulirus argus) inside park waters in the west ern part of the bay, these levels (Bertleson and Hunt 1997). are still modest by estuarine standards. Scientists at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School, the National Marine RESOURCE MONITORING Fisheries Service, and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington have been Dry Tortugas National Park was established conducting spatially intensive assessments in 1992 “to preserve and protect nat ionally of the Tortugas multispecies coral reef fish significant natural, historic, scenic, marine, populations and habitats inside the park and scientific values in South Florida.” To since 1994. On at least an annual basis, assess if current management activities are collaborat ing scient ist s using scuba gear fulfilling this congressional mandate, a visually survey all reef fish populations, number of scientific projects systematically assessing and quantifying the spatial monitor the natural and cultural resources of dist ribut ion of diversit y, abundance, the park. In addition to Florida International numbers and sizes (biomass), exploitation University’s long-term monitoring project levels, surplus yields of the multispecies for water quality mentioned above, as part of coral reef fish community, and reef fish the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctu- habit at preferences. In a subst ant ially more ary’s and the Environmental Protection limited effort, volunteers from The Reef Agency’s water quality protection program, Environmental Educational Foundation also Florida International University’s Southeast list species and give rough count s of coral Environmental Research Center monitors reef fishes at sites within the park on an various water quality parameters inside the annual basis as part of their roving diver park on a quart erly basis. Likewise, the field t echnique. university also monitors sea grass presence and density at a number of stations inside Because of the park’s remoteness (about 70 the park. These projects have been ongoing miles or 118 kilometers west of Key West), since 1996. monitoring projects are very expensive to fund, require collaborative efforts, and The Americorps Program, Florida rarely involve more than annual or International University, and now the semiannual sampling. Because of the park’s University of Florida’s Center for Sea Turtle extreme importance as a regional reference Research have monitored the status and site, sampling has taken place after any t rends of nesting sea turt les since 1995. Dat a extreme or unusual events have occurred. collected include the number and location of Examples of these include the passage of successful nests as well as histological Hurricane George, strong thermal stresses analysis of randomly selected hatchlings. such as pronounced upwelling events, or The Florida Marine Research Institute coral bleaching and disease outbreaks. (FMRI) has monitored six long-term (1989–

115 CULTURAL RESOURCES

P REH IS TO RIC ARCH EO LO G Y in existence by 7,000 B.P. in south Florida. They also used watercraft, and therefore had There are no recorded prehistoric sites in the the means to travel between regional islands Dry Tortugas, and aboriginal occupation or and mainland areas for cultural exchange use of the islands is not well documented in and subsistence purposes. historical records. The scarcity of readily available fresh water would likely have been Submerged areas in the Tort ugas that were a limiting factor, impeding extensive or once accessible to prehistoric people are in long-term habitation. The possibility, many instances buried under several met ers however, that prehistoric or early historic of coral reef, rubble, and accumulated period act ivit y did occur may be borne out sediment s. Under favorable circumst ances, through further ethnographic research and cultural remains from these early inhabitants cont rolled surveys. Previous ground may have been preserved, and evidence dist urbance, from bot h human act ivit ies might be uncovered by future archeological (e.g., the construction of Fort Jefferson) or investigations. Consideration of submerged natural events (such as wave erosion and prehistoric resources should be addresse d by storms) have likely obliterated or obscured project undertakings having the potential to land-based prehistoric remains that may dist urb deep sediment layers. have existed.

Despite the lack of surface discoveries, SHIPWRECKS many archeologists consider it reasonable for submerged prehistoric art ifact s and sites The Dry Tortugas have served as important to be present in the area (Cockrell 1993, pp. navigat ional point s since 1513 when 63-95). Paleo-Indian hunt ers and gatherers, Spanish explorer Ponce de León’s discovery for example, are known to have been in of the islands brought them to the attention south Florida approximately 10,000 to of European seafaring nations. Located at 12,000 years before the present (B. P.). Sea the maritime crossroads linking the Gulf of levels at the beginning of that period were Mexico, the western Caribbean, and the considerably lower (by 60 to 100 meters), Atlantic Ocean, the Tortugas’ treacherous and the region encompassing the Tortugas shallow reefs have claimed numerous ships was then connected to the mainland navigating the 75-mile-wide Straits of peninsula by dry limestone uplands of the Florida. More than 275 maritime casualties Florida continental shelf. Access to the (ships that are totally lost, stranded, or Tort ugas would t herefore have been possible impaired), have been historically docu- for these early nomadic people. ment ed wit hin the 100 square miles of park waters. This represents one of the largest By the beginning of the Archaic cultural assemblages of shipwreck sites in North period (ca. 8,500 B. P.) seawaters had risen America. to within 25 meters of the current coastline. Archaic period people took advantage of the These sites provide a rich archeological increased biological diversity that accom- record spanning more than four centuries of panied the period’s warmer and wetter international economic and political activity climat e. They relied on an abundance of in the region. One vessel thought to be of shellfish and other coastal resources, and Spanish origin and dating to 1622 is among supplemented fishing with intensive hunting the earliest recorded sites in the park. It is and plant gathering. Populations increased also likely that earlier undiscovered wrecks significantly, and village communities were are present in park waters; before 1600,

116 Cultural Resources

Spanish fleets returning to Spain from Vera and patterns of activity. These processes Cruz followed a route that brought them ultimately reflect world economic and close to the Tort ugas as they hugged t he polit ical syst ems. One object ive of t he shore around the Gulf of Mexico. Following park’s “Submerged Cult ural Resource the era of European exploration and early Strategy” (summarized in alternatives B–E colonial activity, historical records docu- and described in more det ail in appendix H) ment repeated marit ime casualt ies cont inu- is the preparation of a multiple-property ing to recent times. Sites such as the “East National Register of Historic Places Key Construction Wreck” and the “Bird Key nomination that would document the Harbor Brick Wreck” represent 19th century significance of recorded shipwreck sites vessels that were en route to Fort Jefferson within this broad historic context. t o deliver bricks and other building materials. Shipwrecks are attractive places for divers to explore because of the sense of discovery To date, 36 separate sites have been listed in and curiosity they evoke. They also serve as the archeological database for the park. Of suitable locations for the establishment of these, about one third have received coral and other marine growth, providing thorough archeological documentation. habit at for a wide variet y of fish and other Multiple ship casualties occurring in the aquatic species. The park is seeking to same location at different times sometimes expand opportunities for visitors to complicate the archeological record. experience selected sites/areas and to Material remains associated with these sites receive interpretive information regarding commonly include anchors, rock and iron their importance. Currently, the Wind- ballast , cannon or gun tubes, iron chain, jammer and Bird Key Harbor Brick Wreck fasteners, hardware, ceramics, brick, etc. sites are the only ones that the park The Windjammer off Loggerhead Key, with encourages divers to visit; they are a portion of its iron hull exposed above stabilized, well documented, and have no water, is one of the few sites for which associated artifacts that could easily be historical documentation has been correlated removed by visitors. to confirm its identity. Constructed in Scotland in 1875 and originally named the Ot her sit es that could be opened to public Killean, the ship was under Norwegian interpretation would have to be approved on ownership and renamed the Avanti at t he the basis of at least the following criteria: time it went down in 1907. Ongoing the site would need to: (1) have documented research may provide more accurate historical and cultural significance that historical correlation for other identified would further the park’s educational and shipwreck sites. interpretive objectives; (2) be clearly recog- nizable as a wreck site by its appearance/ NPS archeologists have compiled site configuration; (3) be stabilized and information into a database that allows “hardened” (archeological values could not comparative analysis of the frequency of be compromised by art ifact removal or other reported ship casualties, weather or storm destructive activities); (4) serve multiple fact ors, the influence of supply and demand visitor use purposes (underwater photog- on the seasonal timing and types of cargo raphy, snorkeling, etc.); (5) have wide transported, home ports, and other variables. public accessibility under optimal conditions The database has facilitated analysis of of visitor safety; and (6) be feasible for the wreck sites as an interrelated collection park t o effect ively manage t hrough t he having associated research values. maint enance of mooring buoys, pat rols, et c. Approached from this broader regional A monitoring program would be put in place perspective, research may provide clearer before any sit e would be opened to public insight into maritime historical processes visitation to assess possible visitor use

117 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT impacts. Archeologically sensitive sites some instances has converted to staff/ would remain off limits to the public. administrative use quarters. Cisterns for the collection of rainwater were constructed below each lower tier casemate; subsequent FORT JEFFERSON sett ling of the fort cracked many of the cistern walls, making them unusable as Fort Jefferson stands as an enduring seawater leaked in. The interior parade area monument to the strategic importance of the is accessed by means of the single sally port Dry Tortugas to American coastal defenses with a granite entrance arch. A nonhistoric during t he 19 th century. Occupying about 16 bridge spans the moat to the sally port. acres on Garden Key, the fort was construc- Wit hin the parade grounds are the founda- t ed as part of the federal program of int e- tion remains of former soldier’s barracks grated coastal defenses known as the Third and officer’s quarters. Two historic engineer System. The program, to bolster and officers’ quarters remain, which have been upgrade perceived deficiencies among the used for park housing. There are also two nation’s earlier fortification systems, was part ially complet ed brick magazines and a enacted in 1817 and placed under the shot furnace (a furnace that was used to direction of American military engineers. superheat cannonballs for the purpose of The construction of Fort Jefferson began in inflicting further damage on targeted enemy 1846, largely in response to unsettled ships by setting them ablaze). international affairs affecting the region. Spain’s diminished role in the Western The construction of Fort Jefferson pro- Hemisphere had left a power vacuum, and ceeded slowly because of its immense size, British fortification of Bermuda alarmed the large expense entailed, and technical/ U.S. officials. Likewise, the escalating logist ical problems. The fort remained under conflict with Mexico posed serious concerns Union cont rol throughout the Civil War, and for Gulf commerce and other regional construct ion cont inued during and following American interests. The United States the war. The fort functioned as a prison for considered a strong and permanent military about 800 Union army desert ers and ot her presence in the area crucial for protecting offenders. Four of those convicted of con- Gulf t rade and port s. It would also preempt spiracy in President Lincoln’s assassination use of the Tortugas’ anchorages by hostile were incarcerated there, including Dr. enemy fleets should attempts be made to Samuel Mudd who had set John Wilkes blockade the United States. Booth’s broken leg. Yellow fever epidemics, smallpox, and ot her diseases claimed many The brick masonry fort was designed as a of the fort’s population. hexagonal structure intended for an armament of about 450 guns and a garrison The fort’s garrison depart ed in 1874, and of 1,500 men. Only about 140 guns were construction activities were suspended in ever actually mounted. The fort’s irregular 1875, before the fort’s full completion. None shape (four of the faces are 476 feet long of the casemates were completed along the and t wo are 325 feet long) was a result of upper tier of the ramparts. Many of the adapting it to the shape of Garden Key. Six embrasures (gun openings through the bast ions were construct ed at the angles of walls) were also never finished, remaining the two-tier 50-foot-high scarp walls. The t oday as large irregular openings. In 1876 a perimeter of the fort is nearly 0.5 mile in hexagonal-shaped light house was construc- length, surrounded on all sides by a moat t ed of boilerplat e iron at op bast ion 6 to re- and outer counterscarp or seawall. The place the original light, which was built in interior fort walls were construct ed of more 1825 on Garden Key. The earlier light had than 2,000 brick arches and vaults, sustained extensive hurricane damage in partitioned into casemates that the park in 1873.

118 Cultural Resources

The fort served as a coaling station during LOGGERHEAD KEY the Spanish-American War. The battleship Maine, which had refueled at the Tortugas, The Loggerhead Key light house is the most exploded in Havana Harbor in February prominent historic structure on this key, 1898, propelling the United States to war which is about 2.5 miles west of Fort Jeffer- with Spain. The ruins of two coaling docks son. The 150-foot-high brick tower was built by the Navy at the turn of the cent ury completed in 1858 to provide improved are at the north and south ends of Garden warning of the Tort ugas’ dangerous reefs. Key. Abandoned by the military after 1906, The smaller 70-foot -high Garden Key light the Tortugas were declared a wildlife refuge was then considered inadequate. The spiral in 1908 to prot ect sooty tern nest ing areas stairway within the Loggerhead Key light- from egg collectors. Fort Jefferson, how- house has around 200 cut slate steps that ever, continued to serve military purposes lead t o the wat ch room and lant ern gallery. during subsequent conflict s — as a com- The tower was seriously damaged by a munications station and seaplane base hurricane in 1873. Although Congress during World War I, as a naval support appropriated $75,000 in 1875 for complete st at ion during World War II, and as a replacement of the lighthouse, temporary military outpost during the Cuban missile masonry repairs were undertaken that crisis of 1962. Fort Jefferson National proved so effective that replacement plans Monument was established in 1935, and the were canceled. fort property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1970. The first light was a 1st order Fresnel lens imported from France that could be seen Fort Jefferson’s masonry has severely from 20 miles on a clear night. It was deteriorated because of the harsh marine replaced in 1909 by a revolving 2nd order environment. In some areas large sections of bivalve lens that float ed in a mercury pool. the outer brick wall have crumbled into the This light (reportedly observed at a distance moat. Stabilization projects are underway to of more than 53 miles in 1934) was removed preserve the masonry where feasible. One of in 1986 and is now on display at the Unit ed these projects is to replace original gun States Coast Guard Aids to Navigation shutters that were designed to close after School in Yorktown, Virginia. The current artillery was fired to provide protection from light is an electric generator-powered incoming enemy fire. These shutters were rotating beacon. The automated system has made of iron, and they have expanded eliminated the need for a permanent on-site during the process of corrosion, displacing light house keeper. the surrounding masonry. Repairs have also recently been made to the sally port and its The original lighthouse keeper’s house (built granit e arch. Rest orat ion of t he parade in 1856−58) was a two-story brick building magazine and shot furnace are additional with a detached kitchen. The house burned preservation objectives. down in 1945 (it s foundat ion exists), but the kitchen survived and was later converted to Archeological investigations of land-based guest quart ers. Other existing significant areas within and outside the fort have not buil dings and st ruct ures include t he original been extensive, although some features, two-story brick oil storage building (built in such as the foundations of the original 1825 1856−58 and converted to a radio room in Garden Key light house and lighthouse 1926); the bosun’s workshop (built in 1926 keepers quarters, have been identified. The t o house oil for the light house following probability for subsurface features and conversion of the original oil storage artifacts remains high, including those buil ding); crew’s quart ers (a one-story brick potentially within the moat. bungalow built in 1922 to provide modern- ized accommodations for the principal

119 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT light house keeper and his family); a boat The 1998 NPS archeological investigations house built around 1923; and cisterns (two also identified a significant site associated built of brick in 1858, and t wo built of with the development and operations of the concret e in 1922). original light house complex. Trash dumps and artifacts dating to the 1856−58 Ruins of the Carnegie Institution of construction period and after were found Washington, D.C., marine biology labora- that may further understanding of the tory are on the north end of the key. The station’s construction and the lifeways of the laboratory operated from about 1904 to residents. Another site, the grave of U.S. 1939, when a disastrous fire destroyed the Navy seaman Thomas Lehay, who died in facilities. Researchers made notable 1898, is near a coral rock wall along the east cont ribut ions to scient ific understanding of side of the island. The grave is not con- coral reefs and tropical marine life in the sidered a sit e that cont ribut es to Loggerhead Western Hemisphere. The first underwater Key’s overall historical significance. photographs (both black and whit e and color) were taken of nearby reefs by lab A National Register of Historic Places nomi- technicians. A metal plaque at the lab site nat ion has been prepared for the Loggerhead commemorates the lab’s founder and first Key Historic District (draft, NPS 1999). The direct or, Alfred G. Mayor. Preliminary NPS entire land area of Loggerhead Key is archeological investigations conducted in included in the historic district , although 1998 indicate that the site may yield primary historical significance is attached to significant archeological information the areas of the lighthouse station complex associated with research operations. and the Carnegie marine laborat ory.

120 VIS ITO R EXP ER I ENC E

Visitors travel to Dry Tortugas by commer- granted permit s by the Nat ional Park cial or private boat or by seaplane. Two Service. Jet skis are prohibited. ferry vessels each bring up to 100 passen- gers from Key West to Garden Key daily. There is no food service or freshwater Travel time is about 2½ hours each way, and showers for visitors on the islands; the only visitors spend about 4 hours on Garden Key. two freshwater drinking fountains are at the The ferry operators provide an in-transit visitor center and outside the office. Visitors orient at ion to the park along wit h a video must bring their own supplies and must describing park resources. They also con- carry all trash with them when they leave the duct an int erpret ive tour of the fort and pro- park. vide lunch for their passengers at the picnic area. Seaplanes carrying from five to nine A1995 visitor survey identified the most passengers make trips daily from Key West. common activities in Dry Tortugas as Flying time is about 35 minutes each way. follows: visiting Fort Jefferson (98%), taking photographs (87%), and snorkeling Recreational opportunities available to visi- (83%). Seventy-eight percent of visitors t ors include swimming, snorkeling, fishing surveyed did not engage in fishing, but 46% from the dock, beach combing, bird and of those who did fish rated their fishing wildlife watching, photography, camping, experience a very important or extremely kayaking, picnicking, and scuba diving to important part of their visit. The areas see coral, fish, and shipwrecks. visitors most often fished were around the fort and near Loggerhead Key. The most Visitors to the park currently receive infor- common reasons for visiting the park were mation about the park in various ways. The outdoor recreation pursuits (41%) and to park websit e and park headquart ers at learn the history of Fort Jefferson (31%). Everglades National Park provide basic Thirty-two percent of the survey’s respond- information about the history, natural and ents visited Loggerhead Key. The primary cultural resources, recreational and educa- activities they participated in were snorkel- tional opportunities, and how to obtain ing and diving (77%) and walking on the transportation to the park. If a person beach (71%). decides to travel to the park with one of the ferry operators, they receive an interpretive Sixty-three percent of the visitors were talk that expands on the same categories of Florida resident s. The next largest groups information. Any visitor who arrives at were from Texas and California, with 4% Garden Key may take a tour of the fort each. For 90% of the visitors their trip gui ded by an NPS int erpret er or by an during the survey period was their first in a employee of a ferry boat operator. A self- year, and for 71% it was their first trip to the guiding tour permits visitors to follow an park in five years. interpretive trail around the fort independ- ently. Because of the small staff, ranger-led During the past six years, visitation to the tours and special interpretive programs are park has increased from a low of 16,736 limited. recreational visits in 1994 to more than 84,000 recreational visits in 1999. About Although commercial fishing is prohibited 5,244 visitors camped overnight. In 1999 in the park, recreational saltwater fishing is about half of the park’s visitors arrived by allowed if visitors have a Florida fishing ferry, nearly 25% traveled by private boats, license. Chart er fishing boat s carrying up to about 10% came by seaplane, and about six people are allowed if they have been 10% were commercial boats (fishing). The

121 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT remainder (5%) were NP S st aff and/or visitation occurred from April to July, and researchers. Conditions at the dock, camp- more than 8,000 visitors arrived each month. ground, and restrooms become quit e Wit h the park’s proximit y t o Cuba, t he crowded during peak visitation periods potential exists for a much greater increase because the number of staff and the capacity in visitation in the future if political condi- of utilities and facilities have not kept pace t ions in that count ry give resident s freedom with the increase in visitors. In 1999 peak to travel.

122 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The Florida Keys are composed of 1,700 was de signed t o limit fut ure growt h. The keys or islands, all of which are in Monroe county’s permanent resident population in County. Dry Tort ugas Nat ional Park is the 1997 was 81,169. The population fluctuates westernmost part of the Florida Keys and is seasonally and increases dramatically during about 70 miles west of Key West, Florida. peak tourism periods. Dade County was the The park contains seven of these keys and is most populous in the region and stat e wit h administered by the National Park Service. 2,128,987 permanent residents, and Broward Fewer than 70 of the 1,700 keys are County had 1,472,927. Since the 1950s, inhabited, and 51 of the easternmost keys sout h Florida has rapidly become urbanized. are connected to or by U.S. Highway 1. Dade and Broward count ies were 99% Most of Monroe County’s landmass is on urbanized by 1980, whereas 27% of Monroe the mainland of Florida, and most of the County’s population still lived outside urban population is in the keys, particularly in areas in 1990. population centers such as Key West, the count y seat . About 17% (544,000) of the region’s resi- dents were at least 65 years old compared to The socioeconomic environment description the national average of 13%. Half of this will focus on Monroe County but will be population was at least 75 years old. Pro- discussed in t he larger cont ext of the Sout h jections indicate that there will be more than Florida Regional Planning Council region, 700,000 people 65 years old or older in which includes Dade and Broward Count ies 2015. (State of Florida 1994 and South Florida Regional Planning Council 1995). These In both Monroe and Broward Counties, per count ies are closely linked in terms of capit a personal income in 1997 — $29,657 t ourism and tourist-based economies. and $27,661, respectively — was higher than the state average of $24,799. Dade County was below the state average with POPULATION AND INCOME $21,688. In 1999 (January – November), unemployment rates in Monroe County Possibly the most important factor ranged from 1.9% to 3.0%. The Ft. Lauder- influencing the Sout h Florida region is it s dale MSA (metropolitan statistical area) explosive growth. In 1970 there were nearly rates for the same period ranged from 3.9% 2 million people living in the region; there to 4.9% and were similar to the state’s range were 3.4 million in 1994 and nearly 3.7 of 3.9% to 4.6%. The Miami metropolitan million in 1997. According to the Strategic statistical area reported the region’s highest Regional Policy Plan for South Florida unemployment rates with ranges from 5.7% (South Florida Regional Planning Council to 7.1%. 1995), the population is expected to increase to about 4.3million residents by the year 2015. This influx most likely will be led by TOURISM AND RECREATION international migration. The region has less than 8% of the state’s land area but almost More than 10 million tourists annually are 25% of the state’s total population. attracted to the region by the area’s climate and resources including the Everglades and Population growth has been lower in southern Florida’s coastal resources. The Monroe Count y than t he rest of t he region number of tourists to the area results in a and the state because of the limited direct economic benefit of more than $13 availability of land and an ordinance that billion for the region. Fifty-one percent of

123 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

South Florida’s visitors are from the The most popular outdoor recreational northeast part of the United States, 23% are activities in 1992 included saltwater beach from the north central region, 22% are from activities, swimming pool use, bicycling, t he south cent ral region, and 6% are from saltwater fishing (boat), golf, picnicking, the West Coast. The number of international and visiting archeological/historic sites. visitors to Dade Count y increased to 4 Other recreation opportunities include million in 1994, up from 2.9 million in boat ing, hunt ing, camping, and nat ure study. 1989. Foreign visitors to Broward County tripled to 1 million from 1989 to 1991. In the Keys most recreation activities are related to water. According to the Florida More than 4 million people visit the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Keys every year. Peak tourist season is from Management Plan / Environmental Impact January to March, and in the Upper Keys the Statement (1996), boat ing act ivit ies account t ourist season is from January to August . for about 13% of all visitor use. About 55% Many tourists in the Upper Keys are week- of all visiting boaters participate in fishing end visitors from Miami and south Florida. activities, and 29% of all tourist boating Visitors to the Keys comprise 42% of the act ivit ies include scuba diving and total population during the peak season. snorkeling trips. About 20% to 30% of all visitors to the Keys snorkel or scuba dive to According to Florida’s 1994 statewide com- see fish, coral reefs, and shipwrecks. The prehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, in Upper Keys contains almost 90% of the 1992 the South Florida Region had nearly popular dive sites, including Key Largo 2.7 million acres of land and water available National Marine Sanctuary and John for out door recreat ion from bot h public and Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. private sources. The region provided about 72 miles of salt wat er beach front age, 1,907 The number of registered boats in Monroe miles of bicycle trails, 180 miles of nature County (the Florida Keys) has increased by t rails, and 12,145 developed campsit es. 48% between 1988 and 1999, as shown on There were 341 saltwater and 196 fresh- figure A. Note that the number of registered wat er boat ramp lanes and 376 salt water boats increased every year during this marinas. period. The upward regression value of 0.97 means that there is no reason to believe that Federally administered lands comprised this upward trend will not continue. It is nearly 1.8 million acres of land and water logical to believe, based on these figures, that was available for outdoor recreation; that the number of boats visiting the park about 70% of this acreage was in Everglades has increased over this period as well. Nat ional Park in Monroe and Dade Counties. State-administered recreation land Fishing-for-hire activities are important to comprised 850,000 acres in 78 sites, the Keys’ tourist industry, with reef fishing including John Pennekamp Coral Reef State concentrated in the Middle and Lower Keys; Park and Key Largo Coral Reef and Looe the largest number of reef fishing boats is in Key Nat ional Marine Sanct uaries. Count y Key West. However, fishing from one’s own and municipal governments also provided boat is the principal way of fishing in the facilities for urban recreation activities. Keys. The number of privately owned Local government s provided 191 salt wat er vessels has multiplied more than six times beach areas and 97% of the region’s since 1965, and more than 106,000 boats freshwater beach area. Forty-three percent of were registered in Monroe, Broward, and demand for outdoor recreation in 1992 came Dade Count ies in the mid-1990s. A survey from residents of the South Florida Region. of private boat fishermen in 1980−81 determined that 43% were from Dade and Broward Count ies, 31% were from the

124 Figure A. The Number of Registered Boats in Monroe County, Florida (1988-1999)

30000 s 25000

20000 r2 = 0.97 15000 % increase = 48%

10000

5000 Number of Registered Boat Registered of Number

0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

YEAR

Source: Monroe County Tax Collector’s Office Note: This includes ALL types of registered boats.

125 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Keys, 13% were from other areas of Florida, 29% of the residents are at least 55 years old and 13% were from areas outside Florida. and 16% are at least 65 years old. About 48% of all income is from nonwage sources, such as social security, retirement pensions, ECONOMY and int erest income. When both ret irement and tourist income flow into the area and are Tourism-related jobs rank in the top sectors independent of employment, there is a de- of the regional economy in terms of employ- mand for local goods and services and ment , part icularly lodging and eat ing and employment and addit ional income is drinking establishments. As a result, the created. regional economy has become more service oriented and less oriented towards goods- A visitor use survey to determine how much producing indust ries. In 1997 in Monroe, tourist recreation activities contribute to the Broward, and Dade Count ies, the services Monroe County economy estimated that industries produced the largest earnings, visitors spent $1.19 billion in the Keys with 35.6%, 34.1%, and 33.8% of total during the periods of June through earnings, respectively. Retail trade November 1995 and December 1995 accounted for the second largest earnings in through May 1996. Businesses that receive Monroe (19.0%) and Broward (12.9%) tourist dollars directly have a ripple effect Counties, while state and local government on other businesses that sell supplies to them was second (11.5%) in Dade County. Earn- and on down the supply chain. This ripple ings in st at e and local government were effect can benefit the economy with 1.5 to 2 third largest in Monroe County (11.9%) and times more than the amount visitors Broward County (11.6%), and the trans- originally spent. The total output, or value port at ion and public ut ilit ies sect or produced for all goods and services produced by an t he third-largest earnings in Dade County indust ry sector in the Keys economy during (10.3%.) the periods mentioned above, was $2.20 billion. For the survey period the ripple The basis of Monroe County’s economy effect of tourist spending resulted in an essentially is tourism and tourist-related est imat ed cont ribut ion of 60.53% of total service industries. Nearly 75% of new jobs output, 45.03% of the total estimated creat ed in Monroe Count y during the past income, and an estimated 46.49% of total decade were in the service and retail trade employment in Monroe County. sect ors. These t wo indust ries make up 52% of the tot al employment in the count y. The Economic impacts from tourism in Monroe service sector includes the hotel and restau- County extend to other counties in the rant trades, and the retail trade sector region. Visitors to the Keys purchase items includes gift shops, apparel stores, and on the way, and many businesses in the businesses that provide products such as count y are supplied by businesses in fishing and boat ing equipment and Broward or Dade Count ies. During the photography supplies. survey period, visitors to the Keys contri- buted about $1.61 billion in output, $1.37 Employment levels are seasonal and are at billion in income, and about 8,300 full-time their highest during the peak tourist season, equivalent jobs to the two count ies. December through April, decline from May t hrough October, and begin increasing in Table 6 shows responses to a mailback November. questionnaire used in the above visitor use survey to estimate spending per person per Retired people plus tourists account for the trip. The table reflects types of expenditures, most income in Monroe Count y. The count y total amount spent on the trip, location of has a large retirement population in which expenditures, and percentages spent in the

126 Socioeconomic Environment locations of Monroe County only or in the condo/time-share fees, and annual RV site sout h Florida region, which included Dade, rentals in Monroe County. Annual expenses Broward and Monroe Count ies. The figures were divided by t he number of people per included not only expendit ures relat ed to the group and number of trips made annually to specific trip but also annual expenses for the Keys. boat storage rental space and marina fees,

TABLE 6: AVERAGE TRIP EXPENDITURES PER PERSON

Total Amount % Spent in Expenditures Amount % Spent in Spent in Monroe Ty pe o f Ex pe n ditu re for Trip Spent in S. S. Florida Monroe County Florida County June – November 1995 Lodging $256.73 $195.06 76.0% $150.4 58.6% Food and Beverages 166.58 141.99 85.2% 112.0 67.2% Transportation 238.66 98.25 41.2% 39.53 16.6% Boating 78.38 76.75 97.9% 28.32 36.1% Fishing 11.21 10.75 95.9% 10.14 90.5% Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 19.75 19.08 96.6% 18.51 93.7% Sightseeing 22.52 14.74 65.5% 9.84 43.7% Other Activity 9.58 7.47 78.0% 5.36 55.9% Expenditures Miscellaneous 66.58 48.69 73.1% 33.62 50.5% Services 7.64 6.74 88.2% 5.29 69.2% Total $877.63 $619.52 70.6% $413.00 47.1%

December – May 1996 Lodging $306.98 $243.03 79.2% $187.38 61.0% Food and Beverages 216.84 174.10 80.3% 138.93 64.1% Transportation 224.02 104.13 46.5% 52.42 23.4% Boating 26.72 24.47 91.6% 15.88 59.4% Fishing 17.51 16.84 96.2% 16.36 93.4% Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 7.18 6.90 96.1% 6.72 93.6% Sightseeing 26.81 19.22 71.7% 13.04 48.6% Other Activity 16.73 12.85 76.8% 7.34 43.9% Expenditures. Miscellaneous 60.39 48.96 81.1% 38.99 64.6% Expenditures Services 19.29 16.67 86.4% 12.98 67.3% Total $922.47 $667.17 72.3% $490.04 53.1%

SOURCE: Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West by English, Kriesel, Leeworthy and Wiley

The table indicates that the largest By attracting visitors to the area, Dry expenditures are for lodging, transportation, Tortugas National Park has an effect on and food and beverages. Visit ors during the Monroe Count y’s economy. T he Office of winter/spring season spend slightly more Social Science, Socio-Economic Studies money than during the summer/fall months. Division of the National Park Service has prepared a money generation model (MGM)

127 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT that provides a way to estimate economic commercial services at Dry Tortugas. benefits of parks to local areas. The local Therefore, there is a temporary moratorium area is defined as the county in which the on issuing new CUA permits until this federal land is located. In fiscal year 1994, amendment is approved. Table 7 presents the Florida Atlantic University / Florida the number of CUA permits currently issued International University (FAU/FIU) Joint by act iv it y. Center for Environmental and Urban Problems conduct ed a survey of federal lands. Using the money generat ion model, TABLE 7. CUA PERMITS ISSUED FOR TH E 1999 contributions to the county’s economy from SEASON Dry Tortugas visitor expenditures were $10,486,792 in sales benefits, $734,075 in Number of CUA tax revenue benefits, and 315 jobs. Activity Permits Issued Airplane 4 transportation Water transportation 8 COMMERCIAL SERVICES Sailing 11 Fishing 17 Commercial services is an umbrella term Scuba/Snorkeling 6 that is used in this document to encompass Birdwatching 9 any service or facility use in a park that involves the exchange of money. The two NOTE: Some operators have CUA permits for main types of commercial services are more than one activity. concession contracts and commercial use authorizations (CUAs). Until recently, commercial use authorizations used to be There are currently 55 CUA permits. They called incident al business permit s and are are issued for a two-year term, and a fee of still referred to as permits or CUA permits. $250 is charged to cover the administrative (NOTE: This kind of permit is not the same costs of issuing the CUA permit and as the permit that visitors might be required monitoring the activity. No other fees are to obtain under some alternatives to visit the collected by the National Park Service. The park.) CUA permits contain several conditions to manage the use depending on the act ivity. Commercial services at Dry Tortugas are For instance, all operators must have managed by personnel at Everglades liability insurance. Maximum vessel lengths National Park with assistance from and maximum passenger limits are operational staff at Dry Tortugas. They stipulated and enforced through monitoring. prepare and negotiate all concession Operational conditions such as time limits contracts and issue all CUA permits. Their on the use of the dock at the fort are also duties include monitoring commercial use stipulated. Seaplanes are limited to five at authorizations, performing regular any given time, and they must have floats or inspections and evaluations, and answering beaching capabilities. CUA permits also all questions related to commercial services outline which types of interpretation/ from the public and interested informat ion are appropriat e and how t o businesspeople. research the information. Finally, those with CUA permits are subject to the same park There are currently no major concession regulat ions as other visitors, including area contracts to provide goods or services at Dry closures and use limit s and fishing, trash, Tortugas National Park. All commercial sanit at ion, anchoring, docking, and camping services are authorized by commercial use regulat ions. authorizations. One of the objectives of this amendment is to give direct ion to managing

128 Socioeconomic Environment

The Park Services does not operate any The National Park Service has a cooperative public transportation. All visitor transpor- agreement with the Florida National Parks tation services to the park are commercially and Monuments Association to sell books, operated through one-year or two-year-term videos, and relat ed product s about the flora, commercial use authorizations. Two permit fauna, and history of the park. Inside the fort holders operate the Yankee Freedom and the on Garden Key there is a small book sales Sunny Days, both of which operate out of area in the visitor center. Through a limited Key West and can carry the maximum concession permit, the association also sells number of passengers currently allowed convenience items such as water, film, and (100). Bot h operators recent ly upgraded sunscreen. Also, requests for commercial their fleets with larger and faster boats. filming are occasionally received at the There are 40 CUA permits issued to smaller park. Each request is evaluat ed boats that bring customers to the park from independently and approved, approved with all over south Florida, and there are four conditions, or rejected under a filming CUA permits issued to seaplane operators. permit. Conditions include limits on Also, numerous privat e boat ers come to t he resource impact s, the mit igat ion of any park from all over South Florida. resource impact s t hat might occur, and no undue interference with the enjoyment and There are two other ways, currently, of use of t he park by the general public. managing commercial activities in the park.

129 LAND USE

Dominant land uses in Key West include an commercial, recreational, and military urban mix of commercial, residential, marine activities. recreational, and transportation. In addition, U.S. Naval Reservations and U.S. Military Commercial establishments such as Reservations occupy parcels of land in Key restaurants and retail shops cater primarily West and on adjacent keys including to tourists. Public facilities such as schools, Fleming and Dredgers. Various facilities fire stat ions, hospit al and courthouse including docks, light buoys, radio towers, intersperse residential neighborhoods of piers, and warehouses are located along the single family and multi-family structures. waterfront in Key West and support The Key West International Airport is in the southeast portion of the city.

130 PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES

Dry Tortugas National Park is administered one maintenance supervisor, one mainten- by a park superint endent who is head- ance mechanic, one general equipment quartered near Homestead, Florida. The mechanic, one maintenance worker, and one superintendent is responsible for the administrative assistant. In addition, there is management of both Everglades and Dry one seasonal maintenance worker. Park staff Tort ugas Nat ional Parks, and the deputy believe that the number of current superint endent funct ions as chief of employees would need to be doubled t o st ay operations for both areas. current with facility maintenance and to make adequate contacts with visitors. Management of the Dry Tort ugas is organ- ized into the following divisions: admini- There is no park staff at Loggerhead Key. stration, visitor protection, science and The park relies on a variable number of resource management , maint enance, and volunteers who commit to stay on the island interpretation. Staff in each division is for at least one mont h. T he volunt eers stationed at Fort Jefferson. Administrative operate the generator and reverse osmosis funct ions including payroll, budget , procure- plant, accomplish facility and site mainten- ment , cont ract ing, and human resources are ance, and contact visitors who come to the accomplished primarily at park headquar- island. t ers. In addit ion, the headquart er’s and Sout h Florida National Resource Center’s staffs coordinate research and resource monitoring He al th an d S afe ty act iv it ies. New Florida state regulations require water Responsibilities of the visitor protection quality monitoring of public beach areas. division include managing for visitor safety The regulat ions require t he park to sample and experience, cont act ing visit ors on board the water weekly for bacteria such as vessels, and performing search and rescue enterro cocci to determine if conditions are activities. Staff in this division also partici- safe for swimmers. Water samples must pates in some interpretive tasks and manages reach a certified laboratory within six hours the campground. The maintenance division for testing. According to park staff, one high is responsible for the operation and main- reading has occurred in the past. Potential tenance of all park facilities and equipment sources include waste from the large number including utilities (water, wastewater, of birds in the area, boat s pumping bilge power, and solid waste), buildings, grounds, water into the ocean near the fort, and employee housing, docks, and boats. The leachate from a leachfield on Garden Key. interpretation division is responsible for interpretive programs and exhibits and Another health issue involves the lack of educat ion, and division staff helps in the freshwater facilities for visitors. There is a bookstore. freshwater drinking fountain at the visitor center, but there are no showers for campground users and no freshwat er sinks PARK OPERATIONS for visitors using the restrooms at the dock. One saltwater sink on Garden Key is used Staff for fish cleaning, but saltwater is not appropriate for visitor bathing needs. Permanent full-time positions on site at the Visitors can easily become dehydrated by Fort include four park rangers in visitor not drinking enough fluids while in the area. protection, one park ranger in interpretation,

131 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Potential safety hazards include sunburns for Three 6,000-gallon underground tanks store visitor using the beach area and visitors diesel fuel to power the generators, which contacting and sustaining injuries from are running at 85% capacity. Seventy-six marine life such as coral, sting rays, and percent of the fuel consumption is related to jelly fish; boats sinking; and boats tangling humidity and air-conditioning. Power in anchor lines or one boat bumping and generat ion is adequat e for current uses, but puncturing another. In addition, groundings addit ional power requirement s, such as an have occurred at Long Key and on various increase in facilities, would result in the reefs. need for addit ional power generat ion.

The trail around the top of the fort presents a Potable water is supplied through a reverse safety hazard for visitors and employees. osmosis (desalinization) process. The The top of the fort is 50 to 60 feet above the process provides about 800 gallons of water sea, and in some places the trail is only 3 to suitable for drinking in a 10-hour period. 4 feet wide. There are no safety railings The water is stored in a cistern in the parade along the wall, and the potential exists for a ground and is used primarily by park staff. visitor to fall, especially when tour groups The cistern’s capacity will be 90,000 gallons concentrate in one area of the trail. Also, when leaks are repaired, which will be bricks occasionally fall from the fort sufficient for current and future needs of structure, presenting another safety hazard. onsite staff. The capacity is not sufficient to handle visitors’ freshwater needs. There also In the past, hazardous materials spills of gas, are cisterns beneath the casemates, which diesel fuel, and propane for cooking have are not used for potable wat er storage occurred, primarily during transport, because seawater leaks into them. loading, and dispensing. The park now has a spill prevention and counter measure plan in There are two septic systems on Garden Key place. Boom equipment for unloading and with tanks feeding into one of four leach- absorbent materials for spills are available. fields. A 2,000-gallon tank, which feeds into In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard licenses one leachfield, is by the dock for the visitor the person making deliveries. However, restroom. A 2,390-gallon capacity tank in additional training is needed for staff the parade ground services staff housing handling these materials. units and feeds into one of three leachfields, which are rot at ed on a mont hly basis. T he Old landfills have begun to emerge at the dock sept ic syst em is not adequat e for north coaling dock and on Loggerhead Key. current visitation and must be pumped at The landfill at the north coaling dock likely least three times a year. The parade ground contains heavy metal contaminants because septic system will not tolerate any further it was an incinerator site. It is uncertain how expansion. None of the leachfields meet hazardous materials were handled at regulations because tidal-influenced Loggerhead Key before the U.S. Coast groundwater reaches the lower elevation of Guard left the site in 1994. No hazardous the field pipes. materials inventories have been conducted for either Garden Key or Loggerhead Key. On Loggerhead Key, two aboveground 3,000-gallon tanks store diesel fuel to operate three 50-kilowatt generators. These Utilities generators can provide more electrical power than is needed to support the On Garden Key electrical power is supplied residences. T he light house lant ern runs on for current housing needs by three 100- solar power. The reverse osmosis plant has kilowatt generators and one 120-kilowatt the capacity to produce 500 gallons of generators; only one runs at any given time. potable water in a 10-hour period, but does

132 Park Operations and Facilities not operate at that capacity unless needed Monitoring because consumption determines production. Detailed information regarding See the discussions of monitoring in the t he sept ic syst em on Loggerhead Key is “ Nat ural Resources” and “Cult ural unavailable. The septic tanks are working Resources” sections. but are construct ed of cast iron that is badly corroded and needing replacement. On both Garden Key and Loggerhead Key the Visitor Protection leachfields need replacement with a raised system or deep well injection system to meet Visitor protection staff is composed of three current regulat ions. commissioned law enforcement positions (and anot her that is being hired), and one All solid waste brought into the park must patrol ranger. Their tasks include maintain- be removed and disposed of on the ing radio, weather monitoring, and vessel mainland. The Activa hauls refuse items navigat ional equipment ; emergency medical such as glass, tin, aluminum, scrap metals, services; search and rescue operations; pest, lubricants, batteries, and recyclables to Key exotic plant, and endangered species man- West for disposal. T he st ate of Florida has agement or surveys; fire protection service; given the park permission to burn equipment installation; ordering supplies noncont aminat ing paper, veget at ion, and wet and maintaining inventory records; camp- trash within the park. The park has solicited ground management ; boat ing safet y proposals for the preparation of a solid inspections; fisheries inspections; demarca- wast e management plan. t ion buoy and mooring buoy management ; park vessel and safet y equipment upkeep; park dive team dut ies; transport at ion Marine Operations services for supplies, transporting personnel and equipment to other island sit es; and The Activa, a 65-foot diesel-powered crew assistance to other law enforcement supply vessel with a crew of two, provides agencies. During peak visitation periods, the transportation to and from the park for NPS patrol ranger spends much of his time employees and their families as well as performing harbor and dock master duties to logistical support for transporting the mail, allow use of the dock for as many visitors as groceries, household goods, and operational possible. Because the park staff is small in supplies. T he Activa runs trips for support of number, rangers also become involved with construct ion and rehabilit at ion project s, day-to-day park operations and lend research work and search and rescue assistance to other divisions in completing operations. necessary projects.

The park has several smaller boats ranging Conducting patrols in the park is another from 18 to 26 feet long, including three task that rangers perform. Sensitive areas are Boston whalers, a Mako, and a Parker. patrolled when visitor protection staff These boats are used for visitor protection, observes or receives notice of suspicious search and rescue, and research. The number activities. Otherwise, patrols are conducted of boats is adequate for the park’s current when time permits staff to be away from needs. However, there is no cyclic funding other dut ies and during nonpeak visit at ion or cont inued funding for upkeep of the boat s periods. Two additional base patrol rangers and relat ed navigat ional and safety gear, are being hired, but this increase still will which presents a safety issue for staff. not allow for two law enforcement personnel t o be on dut y for each shift. The lack of adequate staff becomes a safety issue when a ranger must patrol and board a vessel

133 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT alone. The park needs a reliable radio for $3.00 per person per day. Eleven camp- communications system for patrolling sites are individual sites that accommodate rangers, especially when they might be up to six people or three tents each. There is dealing wit h drug or smuggling operat ions one group site that accommodates about 40 or performing search and rescue operations. people and an overflow site for 40 or more campers. Picnic tables and a charcoal grill The park receives a variety of visitors are associated with the campground. Salt- including commercial fishing fleets seeking water flush toilets at the dock are available safe anchorage, live-aboard vessels, sailing for visitor use, but there are no shower and recreational fishing vessels, and daily facilities or freshwater sinks. Visitors must ferryboats from the mainland. Rangers bring in all supplies, including fuel, water, contact these park users to inform them of ice, food, and convenience items, and carry park regulations and check vessels for safety out all trash and garbage when they leave. or resource violations such as illegal fishing During peak periods such as the spring or removal of resources. Park staff also uses birding season or holiday weekends, the radar to identify locations of visitors in the campground is overcrowded and the dock park and to det ermine if poaching or septic system is overstressed. removal of object s from submerged cult ural resources is occurring. Anchorage and Buoys

FAC ILI TI ES Anchoring is current ly permitt ed throughout the park, and overnight anchoring is Visitor Center restricted to within 1 nautical mile around t he fort . Resource damage is occurring in The visitor center at the fort is open year- some areas of the park due to anchors being round. Visit ors can obt ain park informat ion, dropped on or dragged through coral reefs. purchase materials in the bookstore, and see interpret ive exhibit s and a video describing There are 17 boundary buoys, nine of which the park’s history and natural resources. The are lighted, and about 25 daymarker visitor center encompasses two casemate navigational aids that mark the channel, spaces and is in need of improvements. directing boats in the harbor near the fort. Water leaks into the spaces, and the climate The U.S. Coast Guard currently performs cont rol system does not adequat ely prot ect annual maintenance on the buoys. the exhibits. Also, the size of the visitor center is not adequate to permit updating Mooring buoys are used only for visitor and adding t o the int erpret ive program. services. Currently, there is only one buoy in use in the park at a shipwreck site (the There are no formal visitor services on Windjammer site), which is used for Loggerhead Key, and ferry service vessels snorkeling and diving. Buoys require are not allowed to use the small dock. The monthly inspect ions for damage and facilities on the island include two quarters cleaning every three months, and mooring st ruct ures for volunt eers, the lighthouse, and lines need replacement every two–three various support structures for the utility years. Each buoy costs between $400 to systems. $800 to install including materials, special t ools, and labor.

Campgrounds

On Garden Key there are 13 campsites available on a first-come, first-served basis

134 Park Operations and Facilities

Park Housing passengers and then anchor elsewhere until it is time to pick up the passengers for Most park employees at Garden Key live in depart ure. housing units that are built into casemates of t he fort . Of the 14 tot al housing unit s, 11 are The north end of the pier is the NPS supply constructed within the casemates using the vessel Activa’s berth, although it may also historic walls and ceiling as part of the be used by the public when the Activa is not st ruct ure. One unit is a prot otype that was in port. installed in July 1999 and is self-contained and does not use any of the fort’s historic Any vessel longer than 120 feet blocks the fabric. The remaining two housing units are use of the nort h side dock area. Other in former officers’ quarters. vessels, such as U.S. Coast Guard vessels, research vessels, commercial scuba diving The casemate inserts that use part of the fort vessels, small yachts, recreational fishing as structure have a limited life span, vessels, etc., are often more than 60 feet primarily because of humidity and large long and take up the entire front face of the amounts of water that leak in when it rains. dock. In addit ion, vessels cont ract ed for The quart ers do not meet code and are an special services, including bringing fuel or inconvenience when mortar from the fort large heavy supplies and pumping the septic falls into employee’s food and onto furniture tanks, require considerable dock time. and clothes. On Loggerhead Key there are two single-family residences that provide Crowding occurs at the dock between housing for the researchers, volunteers, and December and May and during major work crews. There is a three-bedroom holiday weekends when many different condominium in Key West for employees to visitor groups come to the island at the same share when they are off duty. time. In addition to the ferry services, these visitors include people from sailing boats, recreational fishing vessels, birdwatching Dock groups, and people from commercial fishing boat s who want to dock to use the picnic The Fort Jefferson dock at Garden Key is facilities. about 120 feet in length at the face of the pier. The front face can be used for public Also needing dock time are vessels with docking when not being used for operat ional mechanical problems that are seeking help at needs such as the loading and unloading of t he fort and requiring communicat ion with supplies, fuel, etc. Docking is allowed the mainland. However, the park does not between sunrise and sunset, and each vessel have the resources to provide parts or assist is allowed up t o two hours docking time with repairs. The park follows the marine unless there are other vessels needing tradition of granting safe harbor — granting access. Ferry vessels are restricted to 100 free and open access to the protected area at feet in length. These vessels tie up to the Garden Key to vessels during st orms or dock at the fort only long enough to drop off emergencies.

135 136 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

137 138 IN TRO DUC TIO N

The National Environmental Policy Act environmental impact analysis precede (NEPA) requires t hat environment al docu- discussions of the impacts. Each resource ments discuss the environmental impacts of topic discussion also details cumulative a proposed federal action, feasible alterna- impacts and presents a conclusion. t ives to that act ion, and any adverse Alternatives B, C, D, and E follow a similar environmental effects that cannot be avoided format but omit the methodology discussion. if the proposed action is implemented. The following portion of the this management According to regulat ions developed by the plan analyzes the environmental impacts of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the five alternatives on natural resources, regulat ion 1508.7, a cumulat ive impact is cultural resources, the visitor experience, the “the impact on the environment which socioeconomic environment, and park results from the incremental impact of the operations and facilities. The analysis is the act ion when added t o other past, present , basis for comparing the beneficial and and reasonably foreseeable future actions adverse effects of the alternatives. regardless of what agency (federal or non- federal) or person undert akes such other The alternatives are primarily conceptual, actions. Cumulative impacts can result from and most potential consequences are pre- individually minor but collectively signifi- sented in qualitative terms. If and when cant actions taking place over a period of specific developments or other actions are time. proposed subsequent to this Gen era l Management Plan Amendment / There are several ot her plans by other Environmental Impact Statement, NP S st aff organizations and agencies (see the will determine whether more detailed “Relationship to Other Planning Efforts” environmental documentation is needed in section) that could also affect the park’s accord with NEPA requirements. natural and cultural resources as well as the socioeconomic conditions. The National Impact analysis discussions are organized by Park Service is aware of these plans and is impact topic and then by alt ernat ive under working in coordinat ion wit h these other each topic. Methodologies used in the efforts.

139 IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

The int ensit y of the impact s described below breeding, nest ing, and feeding habit at s. considers whether the impacts would be Other marine recreational activities like negligible, minor, moderate, or major. These diving and boating have the potential to designat ions are used to describe both damage sensit ive environment s and habit at s beneficial and adverse impacts. Negligible like coral reefs through contact. impacts were effects considered detectable but would have no principal effect on Concern about habitat degradation and biological resources and habitat. Minor escalating resource uses from population impact s were effect s t hat were det ect able but growt h in southern Florida result ed in the not expected to have an overall effect on establishment of the Florida Keys National natural community structure. Moderate Marine Sanctuary in 1990 and the national impacts would be clearly detectable and park in 1992. The park’s mission is to could have an appreciable effect on maintain near-pristine resource qualities, but individual species dynamics, community forecasted trends in increased visitation may ecology (e.g., the numbers of different kinds dest roy t he very resource qualit ies that make of fish present ), or nat ural processes. Major the area special as well as degrade the impact s would have a subst ant ial, highly experience of some visitors. As described in noticeable influence on natural resources. this document, there are a variety of human This would include impacts that have a uses that have the potential to impact the substantial effect on individual species, park’s natural environment. community ecology, or nat ural processes. This section analyzes the potential effects or impacts of implementing five alternatives IN TRO DUC TIO N that have been proposed for the management of Dry Tortugas National Park (appendix F, During the past 14 years, visitation at Dry figure B5). Each of these alternatives has a Tort ugas Nat ional Park has quadrupled, different applicat ion of the four management rising from 18,000 visitors in 1984 to just zones — the research natural area zone, the under 72,000 visitors in 1998 and 84,000 in natural/cultural zone, the historic 1999. Most visitors come between March preservat ion/adapt ive use zone, and the and July, averaging about 245 people per special use zone. Each zone provides day in the park. The increased popularity is different levels of prot ect ion and human use putting excessive stresses on park facilities, of the natural environment and resources, visitor safety, and the quality of the visitor thereby providing varying levels of risk to experience. Human activities have been the park’s resources. The management zone widely implicated for negatively impacting providing the greatest level of protection to the ecological balance of the Florida Keys the park’s resources is the research natural ecosystem (Voss 1988). Visitors to the area (RNA) zone, referred to in the literature Tortugas have been implicated in loss or as marine reserves, marine protected areas, degradat ion of veget at ion, wildlife, and or ecological reserves. (The support for the sensitive habitats through excessive use, use of the research natural areas and the improper contact, and physical manipulation impacts of establishing such an area was of resources. Also, the direct effects of described in t he “ Alt ernat ives, Including t he water, terrestrial, and noise pollution are of Proposed Action” section.) substantial concern to the quality of these sensitive environments that support economically important fisheries and ecologically import ant bird, fish, and turt le

140 Impacts on Natural Resources

METHODOLOGY ALTERNATIVE A

The environmental impact analysis provides Impacts on Essential a framework for assessing the relative risk a n d Uni que H a bit a ts . of implementing each management alter- native to the natural resources of the park, as Coral Reefs. Boaters have been identified well as the expected level of degradation as sources of detrimental impacts on coral due to human use. The environmental reefs, either through grounding (propeller impact analyses consists of two quantitative damage) or inadvertent placement of assessments — a simulation study of the anchors on these sensitive and valuable impacts of implementing each of the habit at s (Davis 1977). Alt hough anchor alternatives on fisheries and their essential damage can be largely eliminat ed through and unique habit at s and an analyt ical the use of mooring buoys, the concentration hierarchy modeling process of the cumula- of use in a small area and even the actual tive impacts on all relevant ecosystem placement of the mooring buoys can damage components of the park’s natural resource sensitive corals, sponges, and seafans on the environment. The sampling cruise reefs. The current high levels of unrestricted conduct ed in 1999 (Ault and Bohnsack boat use and access within all areas of the 1999) provided excellent data from which to park under this alt ernat ive would cont inue to conduct quant it at ive analysis and modeling cause major short- and long-term adverse experiments on both the habitats and fishery localized impacts on coral reefs. resources of the park. The complexity and beauty of coral reefs Methods used include analyzing the amount make them an attractive and valuable of area set aside for protection in resource for ecotourism (Davis and Tisdell conjunction with visitor carrying capacities 1995). However, coral reefs are very sensi- (see table 1), the health of the coral reef t ive to disturbances, and assessment of their syst em (t he diversit y, abundance, size, and diver carrying capacity and damages caused dist ribut ion of the reef fish communit y), the by sport diving is essential for their man- use of a spat ially and t emporally dynamic agement . Both snorkelers and scuba divers population simulation model to simulate the have been implicated in the loss of coral and impact of the alternative management plans coral productivity. Although the effects of on the snapper, grouper, and grunt reef fish other human activities on coral reefs have populations (as well as hogfish) from Key been documented (e.g., coral mining and West out to the Dry Tortugas region, and the dynamite fishing), a limited number of use of an analytical hierarchical process st udies have focused on the damaging (AHP) model to allow resource managers to effects of sport diving. st ruct ure and execute hundreds of quant i- tative and qualitative assessments simul- These limited studies were reviewed by taneously to evaluate alternatives and Davis and Tisdell (1995), who found that rapidly calculate summary values. (The most were focused on spear-fishing and analysis as to which management alternative snorkeling, with the least attention given to provides the best prot ect ion for the park’s scuba diving. Most studies have been based resources is structured as an AHP model.) on observations of diver behavior (e.g., For further details on these methodologies, Rouphael and Inglis 1995 and 1997), and see appendix I. usually compare damage found on heavily dived reefs relat ive to undived areas (Davis and Tisdell 1995). Riegl and Velimirov (1991) established quant it at ively that fast- growing, relatively brittle branching corals suffer the most damage in the Red Sea. Most

141 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES diver damage on reefs is unnecessary, but Hardbottoms. Boaters have been identified the intensity and severity is directly related as sources of det riment al impact s on to susceptibility to damage of certain coral hardbottom communit ies eit her through species in the reef community and their use groundings (propeller damage) or levels by humans (Riegl and Velimirov inadvertent placement of anchors on these 1991, Hawkins and Roberts 1992, Rouphael sensitive and valuable habitats (Davis 1977). and Inglis 1995 and 1997, Allison 1986). Alt hough anchor damage can be largely Diver damages might be avoided by modify- eliminated through the use of mooring ing diver behaviors (Rouphael and Inglis buoys, the concentration of use in a small 1995, Allison 1986, Medio et al. 1997, area and even the actual placement of the Hawkins and Robert s 1992), limit ing diving mooring buoys can damage the sensit ive soft to the sustainable carrying capacity of the corals, sea fans, and sponges of the reefs (Davis and Tisdell 1995, Hawkins and hardbottom communities. The current high Roberts 1992), and managing coral reefs in levels of unrestricted boat use and access terms of their susceptibility to damage within all areas of the park under this (Rouphael and Inglis 1995). alternative would continue to cause major short- and moderate long-term adverse Current levels of unrestricted access to coral localized impacts on these communities. reefs, particularly coral reefs in shallow areas, by fishermen, scuba divers, Sand Bottoms. Boat use over shallow sand snorkelers, and swimmers result in moderate areas can result in increased turbidity due to levels of long-term adverse impacts on these suspension of sand and particulate material. reefs. The continuation of these use patterns Alt hough there is no direct damage done to would allow stress and damage accumula- the sand, increased turbidity can have t ion in conjunct ion with boat damage. detrimental impacts on surrounding coral Because alternative A provides no research reef, hardbott om, and sea grass communit ies natural area zone protection to the park’s by the reduct ion of ambient light levels and essential and unique habitats, this alternative by sediment at ion coat ing the surfaces of woul d cont inue to provide no improvement sensitive organisms like corals and sea over current conditions or protection from grass, inhibit ing normal growt h and feeding. future increased use. Current levels of boat use do not appear to present any long-term detrimental impacts. Se a Grass. Boaters have been identified as Minor short -t erm impact s would occur when sources of det riment al impact s on sea grass boats are run over shallow areas, increasing beds eit her through grounding (propeller turbidity in surrounding areas. Future damage) or inadvertent placement of increases in boat use would pose moderate anchors on these sensitive and valuable short-term impacts because there are no habitats (Davis 1977). These human impacts restrictions on boat use or access under this are obvious in the Florida Keys, such as the alternative. approximately 30,000 acres of sea grass that have been propeller scarred by boat ers Terrestrial Habitats. Although access to (Sargent et al. 1995). T he current high levels some terrestrial areas of the park would of unrestricted boat use and access within all cont inue to be restricted or prohibit ed under areas of the park under this alternative this alternative, other island areas would woul d cont inue to cause major short- and allow complete access to visitors. Unmoni- moderate long-term adverse localized tored use of these terrestrial habitats for impacts on sea grass beds. The loss of sea picnicking, camping, wildlife viewing, grass has also been linked to increased walking, et c. would likely cont inue to cause levels of turbidity due to the destabilization major short -t erm and moderat e long-term of the bott om sediment s. deterioration of island flora. The prevention of any further facility construction would

142 Impacts on Natural Resources provide some level of protection to the populations swell in the region. Many terrestrial resources by preventing the major observat ions in the past 100 years suggest damage caused by such an undertaking. that many well-known individual species of t he Tort ugas region are now pot ent ially rare, threatened, or endangered. Impacts on Fishery Resources Currently, more than 60% of the reef fish in Exploited Reef Fish. Reef fishing can target the Florida Keys are overfished by govern- a number of economically and ecologically ment standards and in need of furt her important species (e.g., groupers, snappers, management intervent ion (Ault et al. 1998). lobst ers, conch, sponges, and corals). T he Although the reef fish populations in the multispecies reef fisheries of the Florida park appear to be in a better condition than Keys are under siege from fleet expansions the rest of the Keys, they are still overfished. and increased vessel fishing power that The simulation results (see appendix I) threaten to overexploit, destroy habitat, showed that a majority of the snapper, change marine environment s, and reduce grouper, and grunt stocks would decline biodiversit y (Bohnsack and Ault 1996). during t he next 20 years wit hout manage- During the past several decades, public use ment int ervent ion. Current levels of and conflicts over fishery resources have exploitat ion would cont inue to result in increased sharply, while some fishery long-term major adverse impacts on the catches from the historically productive exploited reef fish stocks in the park, snapper and grouper stocks have declined reducing the value of the park to almost all (Bohnsack et al. 1994; Ault et al. 1997 and users, including fisherman, scuba divers, and 1998). The Florida Keys are now considered snorkelers. As reef fish stocks begin to an "ecosystem-at-risk" as one of the nation's collapse and become more rare, the m o st sign if icant y et m o st st r essed m ar in e diversity, abundance, size, dist ribut ion, and resources (NOAA/NMFS 1999). The balance of the reef fish communit y would reported serial overfishing of exploited reef become further degraded. Because fish stocks for the Keys (Ault et al. 1998) is alternative A contains no research natural strikingly similar to the current situation area zone, it offers no further protection to observed in the Tortugas, despite the t he diversit y of the reef fish communit y or region’s relatively remote location some 70 protection from increased impacts. miles west of Key West. Other Species. Unexploited reef species — Recent quantitative assessments of the sharks and rays, pelagic species, and baitfish multispecies reef fish community in the — are intricately linked to the health of the Florida Keys showed that fishing mortality reef environment and to the dynamics and levels are very high, that many stocks are resiliency of the exploited reef fish commu- overfished, and that exploitation has altered nity, which eit her preys upon or is the prey the structure and dynamics of the reef fish of these groups of fish. These unexploited community (Ault et al. 1998). As reef fish reef fish species would be impacted stocks continue to decline, the picture of indirectly, through habitat degradation and exploitation potential in the park is rapidly the dynamics of the exploited reef fishery, increasing. The Tortugas provides the last and directly through accidental catches by good fishing grounds for a rapidly growing recreational fisherman. The delicate balance fleet of anglers equipped with technological of the coral reef ecosystem is easily upset by innovations such as GPS (global positioning t he impact s of habit at degradat ion and system) and better and faster vessels that selective fishing on key predator species. magnify the effectiveness of the fishermen. The combination of these factors, under Pressures for increased fishery production current levels of park access and fishing will continue to escalate as human mort ality, would cont inue to present a major

143 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES short- and long-term adverse impact on eggs and nest ing young, thus result ing in these exploited and unexploited fish major short- and long-term impacts for these populations. life stages. With increases in park use, noise levels would inevitably continue to increase, The remoteness of the Tortugas has histori- threatening successful nesting. Visitor cally kept pressures from human population education and compliance with rules growt h, widespread overfishing, and prot ect ing t he nat ural soundscape would pollution at low levels. For several decades mitigate these impacts somewhat. Several the Tortugas region has supported the Keys addit ional threat s to nest ing sit es and the wit h larvae and the export of adult fish, young of seabirds in the park have been which has provided critical support to the identified. The major sources of degradation multibillion-dollar fishing and tourist econ- and/or loss of nesting sites include dist urb- omies. Proposed changes in park natural ance by visitors, noise from planes and resources management would likely enhance boat s, exot ic plant invasions, erosion, and t he conservat ion of it s unique qualit ies as exotic rats that eat eggs and young, resulting well as t he funct ion, dynamics, and pro- in major short- and long-term damages. ductivity of the wider Florida Keys eco- system. Maintenance of the park’s natural Tu r t le s . The sanctity of the park as a haven resource ecosystem has considerable impli- for marine turtles and their nesting sites is cations for ecosystem resiliency and the becoming increasingly jeopardized by the sustainability of fisheries (Lott 1996, Lee et growth of human activities and uses in the al. 1999, Schmidt et al. 1999). These fact s Tort ugas region. T he current levels and make the observed declines in the reef fish access throughout the park of recreational community and the great risks of further boaters with little knowledge of the area adverse impacts extremely important would continue to result in major short- and concerns for park managers and those long-term adverse impacts on turtles swim- involved with the entire Florida Keys ming in the park due to mortality from ecosystem. collisions with boats and/or propellers. The most important human-associated source of mortality is incidental capture of turtles in Impacts on Wildlife Resources shrimp trawls, which accounts for more deaths than all other human activities Birds. The sanctity of the park as a haven combined (NPS 1998). This occurs near the for seabirds and their nesting sites is park boundaries. Ot her threat s are the becoming increasingly jeopardized by the ingest ion of marine debris and ent anglement growth of human activities and resource in active and passive fishing gear (Glenn uses in t he Tort ugas region. Although most 1996). of the birds and their nesting sites are current ly prot ect ed, the levels of human use Several threats to nesting sites of sea turtles and access within the park would continue in the park have been identified. The major to present major long-term adverse impacts sources of degradat ion and/or loss of nest ing on the adult birds, because these uses often sit es include dist urbance by visitors, result in death. Impact s on adult birds are art ificial light ing, exot ic plant invasions, due t o overharvesting of bait fish food erosion, exotic rats that eat eggs and young, sources, changes in prey base or community aircraft overflight s, and predat ion by ghost composit ion through overfishing and noise crabs, which eat turtle eggs. With increases dist urbances from boat s and aircraft in park use, noise levels would inevitably overflights. continue to increase, threatening successful nest ing. Visit or educat ion and compliance The seemingly minor noise distractions from with rules protecting the natural soundscape boat s and planes can potent ially be fat al for woul d mit igat e these impact s somewhat .

144 Impacts on Natural Resources

Although much time and effort is put into Low tolerance for activities that degrade the protecting nesting turtles and their nests, the nat ural light ing and the nat ural soundscape current levels of visit or use and unmonitored of the park would decrease these impacts access to many beach areas would continue and improve the opport unit ies to hear the t o be a moderat e short- and long-t erm threat nat ural sounds and see the night sky, as to the nesting behaviors and nests of the woul d educat ion and compliance with night turtles. sky and soundscape prot ect ion regulat ions.

Marine Mammals. Marine mammals that Wetlands. There would be no impacts on reside in or travel through the park would wet lands under this alt ernat ive. cont inue to be predominant ly impact ed by boat propeller damage, inadvertent entangle- Water Quality. The remoteness of the ment in fishing lines, and habit at degrada- Tortugas has kept pollution at low levels in t ion. Current levels of boat use and the face of population growth, the expansion unrestricted access to all portions of the of development pressures, and harmful park, part icularly areas frequent ed by changes in water quality. manatees and coastal dolphins, would continue to present major short- and long- Nutrient loading is a widespread factor that term adverse impacts on marine mammals alt ers the struct ure and funct ion of aquat ic from collisions and propeller contact — ecosystems (Valiela et al. 1992). Irreparable part icularly for very young and old damages to the park’s sensitive natural individuals that are less mobile and less able resources could result from overuse unless to avoid collisions. visitation levels and types of activities and their locations were balanced with resource preservation. Potential pollution sources Impacts on the Environmental Setting include private and commercial motor boats (fuel leaks, oil spills, sewage, etc.), sail Demographic trends suggest a quadrupling boat s, picnicking, camping, photography, of human population in the South Florida and general use. The nat ural communit ies region during t he next 50 years. Human that comprise the Florida Keys and Dry population growth and resource use issues Tortugas ecosystem exist in a dynamic equi- indicate compounding problems due to librium, and changes that may result in a expected increases in water pollution, noise direct impact on one communit y type can pollut ion, and addit ional light ing associat ed have profound effects on adjacent or inter- with increased presence and use. If these act ing communit ies. The cont inued sust ain- issues are not addressed, the resources and ability of this marine ecosystem depends qualit ies t hat make Dry Tort ugas unique upon the maintenance of clear waters with could be lost . relatively low nutrients (EPA 1999).

Soundscape and Night Lighting. The The water quality within the park constantly current levels of visit at ion focused during faces the potential of a minor or major oil or certain periods of the year provide a fuel spill caused by grounding of recrea- moderate short-term adverse impact on the tional boats, and this threat constitutes a soundscape and the opport unit ies to see the potential major short-term and moderate night sky in the park. Noise also threatens long-t erm adverse impact on the park. Under successful nesting of birds and turtles. As alternative A, this threat would continue. levels of visitation increase, the current The restriction of any further construction of management plan would be insufficient to facilities would provide increased protection control the escalation in light and noise of wat er qualit y. pollution and would present a major short- term risk.

145 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts implementation of nearby research natural areas such as those proposed by the The lack of resource protect ion proposed in sanctuary’s ecological reserves. alternative A would place park resources in significant peril of degradat ion due to these The resource degradation that would occur upst ream changes and would provide no under alt ernat ive A would not only endanger buffer against external sources of impacts. t he park resources, but would also diminish the capacity of the rest of the Florida Keys The remoteness of the Tortugas has histori- to sustain itself into the future. cally kept pressures from fishing and pollution at low levels in the face of rapid regional human population growth, expan- Conclusion sion of development pressures, harmful changes in water quality, and widespread Under alternative A, the aquatic essential overfishing. For several decades the and unique habit at s in the park would Tortugas region has supported the Keys with continue to face long-term impacts through larvae and the export of adult fish, which direct habit at degradat ion from unrestrict ed, has provided crit ical support of the amat eur boat users and through cont act from important multibillion-dollar fishing and scuba divers, snorkelers, and swimmers. tourist economies in the Keys. Conservation These impacts would be compounded by of the unique and significant qualities of the any oil spills, fuel leaks, waste disposals, park provides long-term enhancement to the etc. and by the expected increase in trash function, dynamics, and productivity of the due to increasing visitor use. Fish, shark, broader Florida Keys ecosystem. The and invertebrate populations all use the maintenance of such a system has con- underwat er community in different ways siderable implications on ecosystem (protection, food, spawning, etc.), and resiliency and the sustainability of fisheries changes in the delicate balances of these throughout the Florida Keys (Lott 1996, Lee mult ispecies communit ies due t o fishing and et al. 1999, Schmidt et al. 1999). other effects would continue to cause compounding adverse impacts on the The current high levels of unrestricted boat species and habit at s due to shift s in use. use and access within all areas of the park under this alt ernat ive would cont inue to Likewise, the risks of adverse impacts on the cause short- and long-term adverse localized essential habitats outside the park under impacts on coral reefs, sea grass beds, sand alt ernat ive A would cont inue to compound bott oms, and hardbott om habit at s. These the direct impacts on the fisheries and adverse impact s on the essent ial and unique wildlife living in the park. The fish, marine habit at s in the park would cont inue to mammals, birds, and turtles, habitats, and accumulate over time, resulting in greater unique environment of the park all exist in a and greater degradation of resource quality delicat e balance. Changes to any component and funct ioning, and at some point in the represent risks to all other components. future these critical habitats would lose Implementing alternative A poses a major functionality and become unrecoverable. long-term threat to the overall environmental health of the park’s The park, under alt ernat ive A, would not resources. cont ribut e any significant benefit s to the system of other proposed research natural areas within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, or the coast of the United States, but the park could benefit from the

146 Impacts on Natural Resources

ALTERNATIVE B Impacts on Fishery Resources

Impacts on Essential and Unique Habitats Exploited Reef Fish. The simulation results showed that a majority of the snapper, Coral Reefs, Sea Grass, Hardbottoms, grouper, and grunt populat ions would and Sandbottoms. Management tools cont inue to decline during the next 20 years available under alt ernat ive B would control wit hout management int ervent ion (see the maximum number of visitors in certain appendix I). Current levels of exploitation areas of the park. If in the unrestricted areas would continue to result in short- and long- of the park established standards for term major adverse impacts on the exploited resource quality were exceeded, additional reef fish populations in the park, reducing use rest rict ions would be est ablished t o the value of the park to almost all user prevent further impairment of these groups, including fishermen, scuba divers, resources. Also, visitor education might and snorkelers. limit some damage from anchors and chains. Alt ernat ive B would provide slight ly higher Other Species. As reef fish populations protection to the habitats of the park continue to decline, collapse, and become compared to alternative A. more rare, the diversit y and balance of the reef fish community would become de- Because alternative B provides no research graded. Because alternative B contains no natural area zone protection to the park’s research natural area zone, it offers no essent ial and unique habit at s, it would further prot ect ion t o t he diversity, abun- provide little improvement over current dance, size, and distribution of the reef fish conditions but would enhance protection community or protection from increased from the impact of future increased use. impacts. The combination of these factors, under current levels of park access and Special protection zoning for the elkhorn fishing mort alit y, would result in major and fused staghorn coral formations in the short- and long-term adverse impacts on Long Key/Bush Key tidal channel would these populations. increase protection for these at-risk species.

Terrestrial Habitats. Although access to Impacts on Wildlife Resources some terrestrial areas of the park would cont inue to be restricted or prohibit ed, other Birds and Turtles. Alternative B would island areas would allow complete access to slightly increase protection to birds, turtles, recreational visitors. Improved monitoring and their nesting sites in the park due to of the use of terrestrial resources for limiting overcrowding in areas, spreading picnicking, camping, wildlife viewing, out resource use, and applying management walking, et c. would reduce some of the tools to limit visitor impacts after certain major short -t erm and moderat e long-term management zone standards have been deterioration of island flora due to these reached. Application of the special uses. If established standards for the protection zone to highly sensitive sites management zone for resource qualit y were during crit ical nesting periods would exceeded, additional use restrictions would significantly limit adverse impacts. be est ablished to prevent further impairment Unlimited boater access to the park would of these resources. The prevention of any still present major short- and long-term further facility construction would provide adverse impacts on turtles. some level of prot ect ion to the terrestrial resources by prevent ing the major damage Marine Mammals. Alt ernat ive B would caused by such an undertaking. slightly increase protection to the marine mammals in the park due to spreading out

147 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES resource use and applying management tools but would be insufficient to halt the overall to limit visitor impacts after certain manage- degradation of the park’s resources. ment zone standards have been reached. However, the management zone standards allow some adverse impacts. Unlimited Conclusion boater access to the park would still present major short- and long-term adverse impacts Under alt ernat ive B, the essent ial and unique on marine mammals. aquat ic habitat s in the park would cont inue t o face long-t erm impact s through direct habit at degradat ion from unrestrict ed, Impacts on the Environmental Setting amat eur boat users and through cont act from scuba divers, snorkelers, and swimmers. Soundscape and Night Lighting. The These impacts would be compounded by current levels of visit at ion during periods of any oil spills, fuel leaks, waste disposals, the year result in a moderate short-term etc. and by the expected increase in trash adverse impact on the natural soundscape due t o increasing visitor use. and night light ing wit hin the park. However, as levels of visitation increase, the applica- Fish, shark, and invertebrate, bird, turtle and t ion of management tools and st andards marine mammal populations all use the park (visitor capacity limitations within areas, the in different ways (protection, food, spawn- reduct ion of boat use, and controls on noise ing, etc.), and changes in the delicate levels) would ensure the prot ect ion of the balances of these multispecies communities night view of the sky and the natural due t o fishing and other effect s would soundscapes. continue to cause compounding adverse impacts on the species and habitats. Wetlands. There would be no impacts on wet lan ds. The AHP model results (see figure B13) indicate that alternative B would only be Water Quality. The water quality in the slightly more effective (1.1 times) in park constantly faces the potential of a achieving the park’s goals with respect to minor or major oil or fuel spill caused by natural resources than alternative A. The grounding of recreational boats, and this risk implementation of alternative B would still woul d cont inue under alt ernat ive B. pose a major long-term threat to the overall However, as levels of visitation increase, the environmental health of the park. application of management tools and standards (visitor capacity limitations within areas and the reduction of boat use) wo uld ALTERNATIVE C help decrease the risk to water quality. The restriction of any further construction of The text in the following discussions for facilities would provide increased protection alternative C has the same percentages that of wat er qualit y. were in t h e Draft General Management Plan Amendment / Environmental Impact Statement even though the proposed Cumulative Impacts boundary for the RNA zone changed. Because the percentage of the park that was The risks of adverse impacts on the essential added to the RNA zone with the change in habitats outside the park under alternative B the boundary was only 3%, the recalculation woul d cont inue to compound the direct of the figures was not cost-effective. impacts on the fisheries and wildlife living in the park. These cumulative impacts would be less adverse than those in alternative A

148 Fi gu re B13: Overall AHP model scores for five management alternatives. Score values reflect the relative effectiveness of a given alternative in achieving the park’s goals with respect to natural resources (see appendix I).

149 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Impacts on Essential and Unique Habitats habit at and the use of guided t ours would provide increased protection to land-based Coral Reefs, Sea Grass, Hardbottoms, resources compared to alternative A. and Sand Bottoms. The int roduct ion of a research natural area zone in the park would The restriction of any further construction of significantly reduce the short- and long-term facilities, except dock expansion, and the adverse impacts on coral reefs, sea grass shifting of visitor loads to commercial beds, sand bot toms, and hardbottom habitat s services would provide increased protection within that zone. Restrictions on private boat to the essential habitats of the park, further use in the research natural area zone would decreasing long-term adverse impacts. reduce t he threat of major damage to underwat er habit at s from groundings and Impacts on Fishery Resources propellers. The elimination of anchoring and fishing in the research natural area zone Exploited Reef Fish. Recreational fishing woul d remove t he t hreat of damage to woul d not be allowed in the research nat ural underwater habitats from these activities. area zone under this alternative. The place- ment of this zone (see figure B5b in Limiting scuba diving, snorkeling, and appendix F) would provide greatly increased swimming to deeper, localized areas near levels of prot ect ion for 88% of the reef fish mooring buoys in the research natural area species found in the park, including 97% of zone would significant ly reduce the ext ent the species in the snapper-grouper-grunt of damage to coral reefs from these activi- complex (appendix F, t able A2c). This level ties. The research natural area zone would of protection for such a high proportion of prot ect 41% of the coral reef habit at s in the the total species in the park would benefit park, 100% of the hardbott om habit at s, 26% the reef fish community composition and of the sea grass beds, and 41% of the sand provide stability to the reef fish community bottom areas (appendix F, table A2c). and the park’s natural resources.

This level of research natural area zone The simulation results (see appendix I) show prot ect ion would provide a significant t hat in 20 years, t he research nat ural area increase in habitat quality compared to the zone would produce an 800% increase in no-act ion alt ernat ive (alt ernat ive A), and spawning populations, more than a 1,000% woul d prot ect several ext raordinary coral increase in egg product ion, and only a 20% reef formations (e.g., Loggerhead Forest). drop in yield in weight for all species of the This increased prot ect ion would have a grouper complex residing in the park (figure beneficial impact on reef formations and B7). Note that on figures B7, B9, and B11, associated aquatic life within the research alternative C without the Florida Keys natural area. The aquatic habitats outside the Marine Sanctuary’s ecological reserve is boundaries of the research natural area represent ed but it not one of the alt ernat ives would still face moderate to major long-term presented in this document. The results for adverse impact s due to use by boat ers, the snappers show a 300% increase in fishermen, scuba divers, snorkelers, and spawning population, a 1,500% increase in swimmers. egg product ion, and a 40% decrease in yield in weight (figure B9). Likewise, grunt s show Special protection zoning for the elkhorn a 400% increase in spawning population, a and fused staghorn coral formations in the 500% increase in egg production, and only a Long Key/Bush Key tidal channel would 20% decrease in yield in weight (figure increase protection for these at-risk species. B11). In addit ion, individual fish in the st ocks would be allowed t o grow to larger, Terrestrial Habitats. Monitored and/or naturally attainable sizes within the research restricted access to much of the terrestrial natural area zone, attracting scuba divers

150 Figure B7: Results of the 20-year spatial simulations of the efficacy of the various management alternatives for all grouper species. (Note that alternative C without the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s ecological reserves is not one of the alternatives proposed in this document.) Figure B9: Results of the 20-year spatial simulations of the efficacy of the various management alternatives for all snapper species. (Note that alternative C without the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s ecological reserves is not one of the alternatives proposed in this document.) Figure B11: Results of the 20-year spatial simulations of the efficacy of the various management alternatives for all grunt species. (Note that alternative C without the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s ecological reserves is not one of the alternatives proposed in this document.) Impacts on Natural Resources and snorkelers. Alternative C without the Impacts on the Environmental Setting Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s ecological reserve, on figures B7, B9, and Soundscape and Night Lighting. Visit or B11, is not one of the alternatives proposed capacity limitations within areas, the in this document. reduct ion of boat use, and controls on noise levels would provide a more pristine natural There would be a major short-term and soundscape. Low tolerance for human minor long-term adverse impact on fishing act ivit ies that degrade the nat ural sound- yields in the park; however, fish stock scape and the natural lighting of the park biomass and yields would be higher and would decrease these impacts as would more sustainable over the long term, and the education and compliance with night sky presence of subst ant ially larger individuals and soundscape prot ect ion regulat ions. woul d benefit recreat ional t rophy fishing and commercial yields in water adjacent to Wetlands. Pot ent ial impact s would occur on the research natural area. Additionally, these the marine intertidal unconsolidated shore larger individuals could leave the boundaries wetlands around Garden Key as a result of of the research natural area zone at times dock construction. The exact site of the dock and could be caught by commercial is current ly unknown and would be det er- fishermen or recreational fishermen outside mined during the design phase. Conse- the park seeking these large trophy fish. This quent ly, the ext ent of impact s on wet lands is would result in only moderate long-term uncertain at this time. Appropriate environ- risks of adverse impacts on the population ment al compliance would be conduct ed dur- due to expected fishing around the research ing sit e specific design of the dock facilit y, natural area. including analysis of impact s on wet lands.

Other Species. The creation of the research Water Quality. In the research natural area, natural area would also provide major short- restricted private boat use would decrease t erm and long-t erm benefit s to the diversity, the short-term risks to water quality from abundance, size, and distribut ion of fuel and oil spills due to groundings and unexploited and prot ect ed/t hreat ened fish from pollution (trash, waste disposal, etc.). and invertebrate populations through the The restriction of any further construction of protection of coral reef habitats and the facilities, except the dock expansion, would elimination of accidental-catch mortality in provide increased protection of water the research natural area. qualit y.

The construction of dock facilities under this Impacts on Wildlife Resources alternative might have localized impacts on the environmental resources near the fort. If Birds, Turtles, and Marine Mammals. a floating structure were used, the impacts Measures to control access to land-based should be minimized because no permanent environments in the research natural area st ruct ure would be built and pilings would t hrough guided t ours under alt ernat ive C not have to be driven into the ground. The should significantly reduce short- and long- construction of a permanent, shore-based t erm adverse impact s on bird and turt le nest s st ruct ure might have short -t erm and long- and eggs. term impacts. The potential short-term impact s would be increased sediment at ion Eliminat ing fishing and restrict ing boat use and turbidity, loss of habitat, animal within the research natural area zone would mort ality, air pollut ion, and dust dispersal. greatly reduce the risks to the birds, swim- Pot ent ial long-t erm impact s would include ming turtles, and marine mammals that are loss of habit at, shading of habit at , unnat ural caused by boat ing and fishing. current patterns, artificial habitat creation,

157 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES sediment buildup, and int erference wit h damage t o underwat er habit at s from these turtle nesting. Most of these impacts could activities. Limiting scuba diving, snorkeling, be minimized or eliminated by careful and and swimming to deeper, localized areas t houghtful construct ion and low-impact near mooring buoys in the research natural procedures. area zone would significantly reduce the extent of damage to coral reefs from these activities. The research natural area zone Cumulative Impacts would protect 35% of the coral reef habitats in the park, 38% of the sea grass beds, 20% The proposed research natural area zone in of the sand bottom areas, but none of the this alternative would allow the park to hardbottom habitats (appendix F, table A2c). function as one of several reserves within a This level of research natural area protection larger system of reserves proposed and would provide a significant increase in operating throughout the Florida Keys habitat quality compared to the no-action National Marine Sanctuary, the Gulf of alternative (alternative A). The aquatic Mexico, the eastern coast of the United habit at s out side the boundaries of the States, and the Caribbean, providing and research natural area zone would still face receiving benefits from this system through moderate to major long-term adverse larval, juvenile, and adult transport of impact s due to use by boat ers, fishermen, species. scuba divers, snorkelers, and swimmers.

Special protection zoning for the elkhorn Conclusion and fused staghorn coral formations in the Long Key/Bush Key tidal channel would The AHP model overall results (see figure increase protection for these at-risk species. B13) indicate that alternative C would be 2.5 times more effective in achieving the park’s Terrestrial Habitats. Monitoring and/or goals with respect to natural resources than restricting access to much of the terrestrial alternative A. Implementing alternative C habit at and using guide d t ours would would greatly reduce the major long-term provide increased protection for land threats posed by alternative A to the overall resources compared to alternative A. environmental health of the park’s resources. The restriction of any further construction of facilities, except dock expansion, and the shifting of visitor loads to commercial ALTERNATIVE D services would provide increased protection to the essential habitats of the park, further Impacts on Essential and Unique Habitats decreasing long-term adverse impacts.

Coral Reefs, Sea Grass, Hardbottoms, and Sand Bottoms. The int roduct ion of a Impacts on Fishery Resources research natural area zone in the park would significantly reduce the short- and long-term Exploited Reef Fish. Recreational fishing adverse impacts on coral reefs, sea grass woul d not be allowed in the research nat ural beds, sand bot toms, and hardbottom habitat s area zone under this alternative. The place- in that zone. Restrictions on private boat use ment of this zone (see map in appendix F, in this zone would reduce t he threat of major figure B5c) would provide greatly increased damage t o underwat er habit at s from levels of prot ect ion for 80% of the reef fish groundings and propellers. The elimination species found in the park and 83% of the of anchoring and fishing in the research species in the snapper-grouper-grunt natural area would remove the threat of complex (appendix F, t able A2c). This level

158 Impacts on Natural Resources of protection for a high proportion of the short-term and long-term benefits to the total species in the park would reduce the diversity, abundance, size, and distribut ion, adverse impact on the reef fish community of unexploit ed and prot ect ed/t hreat ened fish composition and provide stability to the reef and invertebrate populations through the fish community. protection of coral reef habitats and the elimination of accidental-catch mortality The simulation results (see appendix I) show within the research natural area zone. t hat in 20 years, t he research nat ural area zone would produce an 800% increase in spawning population, more than a 1,000% Impacts on Wildlife Resources increase in egg product ion, and only a 20% drop in yield in weight for all species in the Birds, Turtles, and Marine Mammals. grouper complex residing in the park (see Measures to control access to land-based figure B7). The results for the snappers environment s through guide d t ours in the show a 280% increase in spawning popula- research natural area should significantly t ion, a 1,400% increase in egg product ion, reduce short- and long-term adverse impacts and a 30% decrease in yield in weight (see on bird and turt le nest s and eggs. Elimina- figure B9). Likewise, the grunt s show a t ing fishing and restrict ing boat use wit hin 350% increase in spawning population, a the research natural area would greatly 500% increase in egg production, and only a reduce the risks to birds, swimming turtles, 20% decrease in yield in weight (see figure and marine mammals that are caused by B11). boat ing and fishing.

In addit ion, individual fishes would be allowed to grow to larger, naturally Impacts on the Environmental Setting attainable sizes within this zone, attracting scuba divers and snorkelers. There would be Soundscape and Night Lighting. Visit or major short -t erm and minor long-t erm capacity limitations within areas, the adverse impacts on fishing yields in the reduct ion of boat use, and controls on noise park; however, fish stock size and yields levels would provide a more pristine natural woul d be higher and sust ainable over the soundscape. Low tolerance for human long term, and the presence of these act ivit ies that degrade the nat ural light ing of substantially larger individuals would t he park would improve opport unit ies to see benefit recreational trophy fishing and the night sky. commercial yields in water adjacent to the research natural area. Additionally, these Wetlands. Pot ent ial impact s would occur on larger individuals could leave the boundaries the marine intertidal unconsolidated shore of the zone at times and could be caught by wetlands around Garden Key as a result of commercial fishermen or recreational dock construction. The exact site of the dock fishermen seeking these large trophy fish. is current ly unknown and would be det er- mined during the design phase. Consequent - Alternative D would provide excellent ly, the extent of impacts on wetlands is un- protection to the exploited reef fish stocks certain at this time. Appropriate environ- (groupers, snappers, and grunt s) and would ment al compliance would be conduct ed result in only moderate long-term adverse during sit e specific design of the dock impacts on the reef fish populations due to facility, including analysis of impacts on expected fishing around the research natural wet lan ds. area zone. Water Quality. In the research natural area, Other Species. The creation of the research restricted private boat use would decrease natural area zone would also provide major the short-term risks to water quality from

159 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES fuel and oil spills due to groundings and alternative D would greatly reduce the major from pollution (trash, waste disposal, etc.). long-t erm threat s posed by alt ernat ive A to The restriction of any further construction of the overall environmental health of the facilities, except for dock expansion, would park’s natural resources. provide increased protection of water qualit y. ALTERNATIVE E The construction of dock facilities under this alternative might have localized impacts on Because the percentage of the park that was the environmental resources near the fort. If deleted from the research natural area zone a floating structure were used, the impacts due t o expansion of the historic preserva- should be minimized because no permanent tion/adaptive use zone in the final plan is st ruct ure would be built and pilings would small (approximately 3%) under this not have to be driven into the ground. The alternative, the recalculation of the figures in construction of a permanent, shore-based the following text was not cost-effective. st ruct ure might have short - and long-t erm impacts. The potential short-term impacts woul d be increased sediment at ion and Impacts on Essential and Unique Habitats turbidity, loss of habitat, animal mortality, air pollut ion, and dust dispersal. Potent ial Coral Reefs, Sea Grass, Hardbottoms, long-t erm impact s would include loss of and Sand Bottoms. The creation of a habit at , shading of habit at , unnat ural current research natural area zone for essentially the patterns, artificial habitat creation, sediment entire park would almost eliminate the short- buil dup, and int erference wit h turt le nesting. and long-term adverse impacts on coral Most of these impacts could be minimized reefs, sea grass beds, sand bottoms, and or eliminat ed by careful and thought ful hardbottom habit at s. Restrict ions on privat e construct ion and low-impact procedures. boat use in the park would reduce t he threat of major damage t o underwater habit at s from groundings and propellers. T he Cumulative Impacts eliminat ion of anchoring and fishing would remove the threat of damage to underwat er The proposed research natural area zone in habitats from these activities. Limiting scuba this alternative would allow the park to diving, snorkeling, and swimming to deeper, function as one of several reserves in a localized areas near mooring buoys in the larger system of reserves proposed and research natural area zone would signifi- operating throughout the Florida Keys cantly reduce the extent of damage to coral National Marine Sanctuary, the Gulf of reefs from these activities. The research Mexico, the eastern coast of the United natural area zone would protect nearly 100% States, and the Caribbean, providing and of all underwater habitat area (appendix F, receiving benefits from this system through table A2b). This level of research natural larval, juvenile, and adult transport of area zone prot ect ion would provide a species. significant increase in habitat quality compared to the no-action alternative (alternative A). Conclusion Special protection zoning for the elkhorn The AHP model overall results (see figure and fused staghorn coral formations in the B13) indicate that alternative D would be Long Key/Bush Key tidal channel would 2.1 times more effective in achieving the increase protection for these at-risk species. park’s goals with respect to natural resources than alternative A. Implementing

160 Impacts on Natural Resources

Terrestrial Habitats. Monitored and/or fishermen and recreational trophy fishermen restricted access to most of the terrestrial in waters adjacent to the park because these habit at and the use of guided t ours would larger individuals could leave the boundaries provide increased protection to land-based of the park at times and could be caught by resources compared to alternative A. commercial fishermen and recreational The restriction of any further construction of fishermen seeking these large trophy fish. facilities, except dock expansion, and the shifting of visitor loads to commercial Alt ernat ive E would provide excellent pro- services, would provide increased protect ion tection to the exploited reef fish populations to the essential habitats of the park, further (groupers, snappers, and grunt s) and would decreasing long-term adverse impacts. result in only minor long-term risks of adverse impacts on those populations due to fishing around the park. Impacts on Fishery Resources Other Species. The creation of the research Exploited Reef Fish. Recreational fishing natural area zone would also provide major woul d not be allowed in the park (see map short- and long-term benefits to the in appendix F, figure B5d) under this diversity, abundance, size, and distribut ion, alternative, except in the historic preserva- of unexploit ed and prot ect ed/t hreat ened fish t ion/adapt ive use zone. This would prot ect and invertebrate populations through the 100% of the reef fish species in the park and protection of coral reef habitats and the thus provide stability to the community. elimination of accidental-catch mortality.

The simulation results (see appendix I) show t hat for the park and Tort ugas region, in 20 Impacts on Wildlife Resources years the research natural area zone would produce a 900% increase in spawning Birds, Turtles, and Marine Mammals. population, more than a 1000% increase in Measures to control access to land-based egg product ion, and a 50% drop in fishery environment s through guide d t ours under yield in weight for the groupers (see figure alternative E should significantly reduce B7). The increases in stock biomass would short- and long-term adverse impacts on bird be reflect ed in larger individuals and great er and t urt le nests and eggs. stock reproductive potential. The results for the snappers show a 400% increase in Eliminat ing fishing and restrict ing boat use spawning population, a 2,000% increase in within the research natural area (most of the egg production, and also a 50% decrease in park) would nearly eliminate the risks to yield in weight (see figure B9). Likewise, swimming turtles, birds, and marine mam- the grunts show a 500% increase in mals that are caused by boat ing and fishing. spawning population, a 600% increase in egg product ion, and a 50% decrease in yield in weight (figure B11). Impacts on the Environmental Setting

With fishing allowed only in a very limited Soundscape and Night Lighting. Visit or portion of the park, fishery yields would be capacity limitations within areas, the nearly eliminat ed. In addit ion, individuals reduct ion of boat use, and controls on noise woul d be allowed t o grow to larger, levels would provide a more pristine natural naturally attainable sizes within the research soundscape. Low tolerance for human natural area (most of the park), thereby act ivit ies that degrade the nat ural light ing of att ract ing scuba divers and snorkelers. The t he park would improve the opport unit ies to presence of subst ant ially larger individual see the night sky. fish in the park would benefit commercial

161 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Wetlands. Pot ent ial impact s would occur on larger system of reserves proposed and the marine intertidal unconsolidated shore operating throughout the Florida Keys wetlands around Garden Key as a result of National Marine Sanctuary, the Gulf of dock construction. The exact site of the dock Mexico, the eastern coast of the United is current ly unknown and would be det er- States, and the Caribbean, providing and mined during the design phase. Conse- receiving benefits from this system through quent ly, the ext ent of impact s on wet lands is larval, juvenile, and adult transport of uncertain at this time. Appropriate environ- species. ment al compliance would be conduct ed during sit e specific design of the dock facility, including analysis of impacts on Conclusion wet lan ds. The AHP model overall results (see figure Water Quality. Rest rict ed privat e boat use B13) indicate that alternative E would be 5 in most of the park would greatly decrease times more effective in achieving the park’s the short-term risks to water quality from goals with respect to natural resources than fuel and oil spills due to groundings and alt ernat ive A. The implementat ion of from pollution (trash, waste disposal, etc.). alternative E would almost eliminate the The restriction of any further construction of major long-term threats posed by alternative facilities, except dock expansion, would A to the overall environmental health of the provide increased protection of water park’s natural resources. qualit y.

The construction of dock facilities under this SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION alternative might have localized impacts on the environmental resources near the fort. If To demonstrate the success of any a floating structure were used, the impacts management decisions within an ecosystem, should be minimized because no permanent it is necessary to understand both the initial st ruct ure would be built and pilings would state of the system and any changes that not have to be driven into the ground. The occur within the system over a given time construction of a permanent, shore-based period. It is a certainty that at some point in st ruct ure might have short -t erm and long- the future the National Park Service will be term impacts. The potential short-term required t o just ify it s use of a research impact s would be increased sediment at ion natural area zone within the park. This will and turbidity, loss of habitat, animal require both baseline estimat es of the mort ality, air pollut ion, and dust dispersal. resources wit hin the park and quant ificat ion Pot ent ial long-t erm impact s would include of changes in those resources over time to loss of habit at, shading of habit at , unnat ural successfully demonstrate the research current patterns, artificial habitat creation, natural area zone efficacy in meeting sediment buildup, and int erference wit h management goals. The comprehensive turtle nesting. Most of these impacts could quant itat ive reef fish and habit at sampling be minimized or eliminated by careful and survey conduct ed from lat e May to mid-July t houghtful construct ion and low-impact 1999 provides excellent baseline estimates procedures. of both the fishery resources and their crit ical habit at s (reef, hardbott om, et c.).

Cumulative Impacts Quantitative research conducted using mathematical programming, optimization, The proposed research natural area zone in and spat ial modeling techniques showed t hat this alternative would allow the park to reef fish species that were fished the most function as one of several reserves in a before the establishment of a research

162 Impacts on Natural Resources natural area zone showed the greatest Due t o the frequency of sight ings from recovery response to the establishment of visual surveys and estimated current fishing the zone (Meester 2000). Therefore, it is m o rt ality rat es, it is reco mm en ded t h at a important to include these species in a monitoring program minimally include the monitoring plan to assess the impacts of the red and black groupers, the gray and establishment of this zone. The results of the yellowtail snappers, and the white grunt simulat ion work done for t his management within the appropriate monitoring and plan, as well as the results of a retrospective assessment survey design. A more robust assessment for the entire Florida Keys (Ault st rat egy would be t o sample the ent ire reef et al. 1998), indicate that serial overfishing fish community to compare effects on is occurring in the Florida Keys reef fish exploited and nonexploited community community where the grouper species is the members. Changes in population numbers most intensely fished, followed by the and sizes of individuals in the reef fish snappers and then the grunts. populations after the establishment of the research natural area should be particularly marked for groupers.

163 IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

METHODOLOGY and confined to a single element contri- but ing to the significance of a larger nat ional The assessment of impacts on cultural register property/district, or archeological resources and historic properties was made site(s) with low to moderate data potential. in accordance with regulations of the Resource protection measures result in a Advisory Council on Historic Preservat ion limited degree of cultural resource (36 CFR 800) implementing section 106 of preservation. the National Historic Preservation Act. Following a determination of the areas of Moderate — The impact is sufficient to alter potential effect, cultural resources were character-defining features of historic identified within these areas that are either properties, generally involving a single or listed on or are eligible for listing on the small group of cont ribut ing element s or National Register of Historic Places. An archeological site(s) with moderate to high assessment was made of the nature and dat a pot ent ial. Resource prot ect ion measures extent of the effects on cultural resources result in an adequate degree of cultural anticipated from implementing proposed resource preservation. undert akings. Cult ural resources can be affected by actions that alter in any way the Major — The impact results in a substantial attributes that qualify the resources for and highly noticeable change in character- inclusion on the nat ional regist er. Adverse defining features of historic properties, effects can result when the integrity of a generally involving a large group of resource’s significant characteristics is cont ribut ing element s and/or individually diminished. Consideration was given both to significant property or archeological sit e(s) the effects anticipated at the same time and with high to exceptional data potential. place of the undertaking, and to those Resource protection measures result in a potentially occurring indirectly and/or at a comprehensive or subst ant ially enhanced later time and distance. degree of cultural resource preservation.

To provide consist ency wit h requirement s of the National Environmental Policy Act, the REGULATIONS AND POLICIES effects on cultural resources are also described (in the conclusion sections for The National Park Service is mandated to each alternative) in terminology intended to preserve and protect its cultural resources convey the duration, intensity and through the Organic Act of 1916 (USC title beneficial/negative nature of potential 16) and such specific legislation as the impacts. The intensity of impacts is defined Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431); the as follows: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470); the National Negligible — The impact is barely per- Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as ceptible and not measurable. Significant amended (42 USC 4321, 4331, 4332); the character-defining attributes of historic Archeological Resources Protection Act of properties (including the informational 1979 (16 USC 470); and the Native Ameri- pot ent ial of archeological resources) are not can Graves Protection and Repatriation Act appreciably diminished or enhanced by the of 1990 (25 USC 3001). In addition, the undert aking or resource prot ect ion measure. management of cult ural resources is guide d by the Advisory Council on Historic Minor — The impact is perceptible and Preservation’s implementing regulations measurable. The effects remain localized regarding “Protection of Historic Properties”

164 Impacts on Cultural Resources

(36 CFR 800); the Secretary of the Interior’s There is a potential, however, that increased Standards for the Treatment of Historic visitation might impact significant resources Properties (1995) and Guidelines for the without an increase in park staff and Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996); preservation/monitoring activities. At Fort Chapter V of the National Park Service’s Jefferson, for example, the massive masonry Management Policies (1988); and the walls and brick walkways are generally National Park Service’s Cultural Resources capable of withstanding heavy visitor use. Management Guideline (DO-28 1998). However, at less protected areas (e.g., on top of the fort’s earthen parapets along the scarp As part of it s cult ural resource management walls) increased pedestrian traffic might responsibilities, the National Park Service potentially disturb historic fabric as a result st rives to invent ory and evaluat e all cult ural of soil erosion, perhaps leading to masonry resources under it s jurisdict ional manage- destabilization. Preservation maintenance ment. Section 110 of the National Historic and stabilization activities are critical for Preservation Act requires that historic ensuring the fort’s long-term survival and propert ies be ident ified and evaluat ed under st ruct ural int egrit y, and also to enhance t he crit eria of Nat ional Regist er of Historic visitor safety as increasing numbers of Places eligibility. Section 110 also stipulates tourists tour the fort. t hat historic propert ies be managed t o pre- serve and protect significant values. Section Expansion and rehabilitation of the Fort 106 of the Nat ional Historic Preservat ion Jefferson visitor center into adjacent Act requires that federal agencies having casemates would be expected to have no direct or indirect jurisdict ion over adverse effect on the fort’s historical undertakings consider the effect of those integrity provided that construction activities undert akings on resources either list ed on or were sensitively carried out so as not to eligible for listing on the National Register irret rievably damage or dist urb historic of Historic Places. It also requires that the fabric (e.g., masonry walls). More effective Advisory Council on Historic Preservat ion, interpret ive act ivit ies and exhibit s would be the state historic preservation officer, tribal accommodated by the expanded visitor representatives, and other concerned parties center, and problems currently resulting be provided an opport unity to comment . from spalling mort ar/masonry would be abated. Planned upgrade of the casemates currently used for visitor and staff quarters ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) woul d also have no adverse effect on the fort’s historic fabric because efficiency Analysi s living-space inserts would be placed in the casemates to avoid or minimize disturbance Cult ural resources would not be adversely of the existing masonry. affected by ongoing park undertakings, and woul d be prot ect ed to the greatest ext ent The growing popularity of shipwreck permitt ed under NPS policies and the exploration among recreational divers also availability of park staff and other NPS presents concerns for cultural resource support personnel to carry out protection protection. The park’s extensive assemblage measures. Preservation actions to stabilize of shipwreck sites could sustain loss or historic structural features at Fort Jefferson impairment of valuable archeological and (as necessary) at Loggerhead Key would information as divers (either intentionally or continue to be carried out in accordance inadvertently) disturb historic fabric or wit h NPS st andards and guidelines and the remove artifacts. The park would monitor Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the resource conditions, attempt to keep divers Treatment of Historic Properties. away from sensitive sites, and undertake other measures to reduce diver-related

165 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES impacts. However, current park staffing the fort’s historic fabric and structural levels are insufficient to adequately patrol integrity. All preservation undertakings shipwreck sites or to impart the importance would be carried out in accordance with of resource protection to visitors. Faced with NPS policies and st andards and would have increasing numbers of divers exploring no adverse effect on the national register wreck sit es, the park would likely cont inue significance of historic properties. t o react to incident s of resource damage rather than carry out more proactive and Increased visit at ion, however, could result in comprehensive resource protection long-term moderate to major adverse effects measures. on cult ural resources (bot h submerged and land-based) without a corresponding increase in the park’s ability to effectively Cumulative Impacts monitor and manage visit or use. The park woul d cont inue to carry out resource Significant cultural resources within the protection to the greatest extent permitted park have sustained adverse effects from under exist ing policies, funding, and st affing both natural causes (the harsh marine levels. environment, wave and st orm damage, et c.) and human impact s. Hurricanes during the last century, for example, seriously damaged ALTERNATIVE B light houses on Loggerhead and Garden Keys, and Fort Jefferson’s exposed masonry Analysi s continues to spall and deteriorate. Shipwreck sit es face ongoing dist urbance from nat ural This alternative would be expected to result processes and the impacts of recreational in great er prot ect ion of cult ural resources divers. In conjunction with increasing than would occur under alternative A. The numbers of park visitors, a corresponding park staff would be able to more effectively potential for further adverse effects on carry out resource protection and monitoring submerged and land-based cultural resources activities by limiting the number of visitors might be expect ed. However, the cont inua- permitted in selected areas at a given time. t ion of NPS policies and restorat ion under- takings would assist in protecting and In addit ion to t he cont inuat ion of NPS preserving cultural resources to the extent cult ural resource policies and prot ect ive permitt ed under current and project ed measures, the park would undert ake more funding/staffing levels. The immensity of comprehensive protection for shipwreck Fort Jefferson and the unique challenges it sit es under provisions of the Subm erged presents for comprehensive preservation in Cultural Resources Strategy (see appendix it s isolat ed marit ime sett ing would cont inue H). Among its provisions, a systematic and t o be a major cult ural resource management multidisciplinary monitoring program would issue into the future. be implemented to assess impacts, analyze and compare changed site conditions, and provide the basis for appropriat e treat ment Conclusion or remedial action. An effective monitoring program would have to be in place before Ongoing stabilization and preservation any site was opened to recreational diving. maintenance would have moderate to major Mooring buoys would direct divers to long-term benefits on Fort Jefferson, and (as selected locations, and sensitive sites would necessary) the Loggerhead Key historic remain off-limits except for approved district. Expansion and rehabilitation of research purposes. casemates for the visitor center and housing woul d be sensit ively carried out, prot ect ing

166 Impacts on Cultural Resources

Heavy visit or use would cont inue to be beneficial effects that would serve to check expected at Fort Jefferson, which would or abate adverse effects in the future. remain the primary destination for commercial transportation providers. The Alt hough the park would be in a better park would t herefore strive to ensure that position to proactively manage and protect pot ent ial visit or use impact s would not cultural resources by implementing these compromise the fort’s historic integrity or measures, the immensity of Fort Jefferson compound the deterioration occurring as a and the unique challenges it presents for result of the harsh marine environment. The comprehensive preservation in its isolated park would continue to apply stabilization marit ime sett ing would cont inue to be a measures to arrest deteriorat ion and would, major cultural resource management issue. as necessary, restrict visitor access to sensitive areas that require remedial preservation treatment. No adverse effect on Conclusion significant historic feat ures would be expected from expansion and rehabilitation Implementation of this alternative would be of the Fort Jefferson visitor center and expected to have no adverse effect on his- upgrades of existing staff/visitor quarters t oric propert ies and would provide long- within the fort casemates. term moderate benefits for preserving and protecting cultural resources. The park’s Addit ional staff would be required t o ability to proactively manage cultural adequately implement or enforce the resources and monitor visitor use impacts necessary range of resource protection would be enhanced with the adoption of the measures. Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy and limitations on visitor numbers permitted in certain areas of the park. Cumulative Impacts In common with all alternatives, ongoing Significant cultural resources within the stabilization and preservation maintenance park have sustained adverse effects from would have long-term moderate to major both natural causes (the harsh marine benefits on Fort Jefferson and (as necessary) environment, wave and st orm damage, et c.) the Loggerhead Key historic district. and human impact s. Hurricanes during the Expansion and rehabilitation of casemates last century, for example, seriously damaged for the visitor cent er and housing would be light houses on Loggerhead and Garden sensitively carried out, protecting the fort’s Keys, and Fort Jefferson’s exposed masonry historic fabric and struct ural int egrity. All continues to spall and deteriorate. Shipwreck preservat ion undert akings would be carried sit es face ongoing dist urbance from nat ural out in accordance with NPS policies and processes and the impacts of recreational st andards and would have no adverse effect divers. In conjunction with increasing on the national register significance of numbers of park visitors, a corresponding historic properties. potential for further adverse effects on submerged and land-based cultural resources may be expected. However, along with NPS ALTERNATIVE C policies for preserving and protecting cultural resources, additional measures to Analysi s limit visitor numbers in certain areas of the park, and the implementation of systematic Implementing this alternative would entail resource management approaches (e.g., the more comprehensive protection of cultural Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy, see resources than would occur under alt erna- appendix H) would provide positive tives A and B. In common with alternative

167 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

B, the park would be able t o more effect ive- divers in approved locat ions, and sensit ive ly carry out resource prot ect ion and monit or- sites would remain off-limits except for ing activities by limiting the number of approved research purposes. visitors permitted in approved areas of the park at a given time. The establishment of a Heavy visit or use would cont inue to be research natural area zone (intended expected at Fort Jefferson, which would primarily to protect critical marine habitat remain the initial destination for commercial and ecosystems) would also have posit ive t ransport at ion providers and privat e boat ers benefits on the cultural resources within this receiving permits. The park would therefore zone. Visit or act ivit ies would be managed to strive to ensure that potential visitor use prevent or minimize resource impacts. The impact s would not compromise t he fort ’s emphasis placed on scientific research and historic integrity or compound the deteriora- the retention of resources in as near-pristine tion occurring as a result of the harsh marine condit ion as possible woul d coincide wit h environment. The park staff would cont inue the objectives of cultural resource to apply stabilization measures to arrest preservation and archeological research. deterioration and, as necessary, restrict visitor access to sensitive areas requiring The requirement that visitors receive a remedial preservation treatment. No adverse permit to enter the research natural area effect on significant historic features would zone would provide an effective means of be expected from expansion and rehabilita- impart ing the requirement s for prot ect ing tion of the Fort Jefferson visitor center and cultural resources and the penalties for upgrades of the staff/visit or quart ers wit hin dist urbance. This requirement would also the fort casemates. allow the park to more closely monitor the dist ribut ion and types of visitor act ivit ies The proposed extension of the dock to occurring in the zone, which would support accommodate concession vessel(s) would cultural resource management objectives. In require an archeological assessment to collaboration with the National Park ident ify pot ent ial submerged cult ural Service, commercial tour operators would resources in the area of the dock extension. assume a substantial role in providing If significant sit es were found that could not visitors with information regarding cultural be avoided by construct ion, dat a recovery resource prot ect ion. This would have excavations or other approved mitigation positive benefits, particularly if NPS staffing measures would be implement ed before levels remain inadequate to effectively starting construction. impart this information to visitors.

In addit ion to t he cont inuat ion of NPS Cumulative Impacts cult ural resource policies and prot ect ive measures, t he park would undert ake Significant cultural resources within the comprehensive protection of shipwreck sites park have sustained adverse effects from under provisions of the Subm erged Cultural both natural causes (the harsh marine Resources Strategy (see appendix H). environment, wave and st orm damage, et c.) Among its provisions, a systematic and and previous human impacts. Hurricanes multidisciplinary monitoring program would during t he last cent ury, for example, be implemented to assess impacts, analyze seriously damaged light houses on Logger- and compare changed site conditions, and head and Garden Keys, and Fort Jefferson’s provide the basis for appropriat e treat ment exposed masonry cont inues to spall and or remedial action. An effective monitoring deteriorate. Shipwreck sites face ongoing program would have to be in place before dist urbance from nat ural processes and t he any site was opened to recreational diving. impacts of recreational divers. In conjunc- Mooring buoys would be use d t o keep tion with increasing numbers of park

168 Impacts on Cultural Resources visitors, a corresponding potential for further would be carried out in accordance with adverse effect s on submerged and land- NPS policies and st andards and would have based cult ural resources might be expect ed. no adverse effect on the national register However, along with NPS policies for significance of historic properties. preserving and protecting cultural resources, additional measures to limit visitor numbers To ensure t hat pot ent ial archeological in certain areas of the park, implementation resources are avoided or mitigated, archeo- of systemat ic resource management logical assessment s would be required for approaches (e.g., the Subm erged Cultural areas of construct ion-relat ed dist urbance Resources Strategy), the establishment of a associated with extension of the dock. research natural area zone, and visitor permitt ing requirement s would all provide positive beneficial effects that would serve ALTERNATIVE D to check or abate adverse effects in the future. Analysi s

Alt hough the park would be in a better For the most part, the effects on cultural position to proactively manage and protect resources under this alt ernat ive would be t he cultural resources by implementing these same as those described under alt ernat ive C. measures, the immensity of Fort Jefferson The elimination of private boats from the and the unique challenges it presents for research natural area zone would be comprehensive preservation in its isolated expected to incrementally increase the marit ime sett ing would cont inue to be a prot ect ion afforded to submerged cult ural major cultural resource management issue. resources from visitor impacts. Visitor access to this zone would be solely by means of commercially operated tour Conclusion vessels, and recreat ional diving under the direct ion of these operat ions would be Implementing this alternative would be closely monitored to ensure that submerged expected to have no adverse effect on resources were adequately protected. historic properties and would provide major long-term benefits for the preservation and Requiring privat e boat ers to get a permit to protection of cultural resources. The park enter the natural/cultural zone would pro- staff’s ability to proactively manage cultural vide an effective means of imparting the resources and monitor visitor use impacts requirement s for prot ect ing cult ural woul d be subst ant ially enhanced wit h the resources and the penalt ies for disturbance. adopt ion of the Subm erged Cultural This requirement would also allow t he park Resources Strategy, limitations on visitor to more closely monitor the distribution and numbers, permitt ing requirement s, and the types of visitor activities occurring over a adoption of a research natural area zone. wider area of the park than under alternative C, which would benefit cult ural resource In common with all alternatives, ongoing management object ives. In collaborat ion stabilization and preservation maintenance with the National Park Service, commercial would have long-term moderate to major t our operators would assume a subst ant ial benefits on Fort Jefferson and (as necessary) role in providing visitors with information the Loggerhead Key historic district. Expan- regarding cult ural resource prot ect ion. T his sion and rehabilit at ion of casemat es for the would have positive benefits, particularly if visitor cent er and housing would be sensi- NPS staffing levels remain inadequate to tively carried out in a fashion that protects effectively impart this information to the fort’s historic fabric and structural visitors. integrity. All preservation undertakings

169 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

In addit ion to t he cont inuat ion of NPS Cumulative Impacts cult ural resource policies and prot ect ive measures, the park staff would undertake the Significant cultural resources in the park comprehensive protection of shipwreck sites have sustained adverse effects from both under provisions of the Subm erged Cultural natural causes (the harsh marine environ- Resources Strategy (see appendix H). ment , wave and storm damage, etc.) and Among its provisions, a systematic and human impacts. Hurricanes during the last multidisciplinary monitoring program would century, for example, seriously damaged be implemented to assess impacts, analyze light houses on Loggerhead and Garden and compare changed site conditions, and Keys, and Fort Jefferson’s exposed masonry provide the basis for appropriat e treat ment continues to spall and deteriorate. Shipwreck or remedial action. An effective monitoring sit es face ongoing dist urbance from nat ural program would have to be in place before processes and the impacts of recreational any site was opened to recreational diving. divers. In conjunction with increasing num- Mooring buoys would be use d t o keep bers of visitors to the park, a corresponding divers in approved locat ions, and sensit ive potential for further adverse effects on sites would remain off-limits except for submerged and land-based cultural resources approved research purposes. might be expected. However, along with NPS policies for preserving and protecting Heavy visit or use would cont inue to be cultural resources, additional measures to expected at Fort Jefferson, which would limit visitor numbers in certain areas of the remain the initial destination for commercial park, the implementation of systematic t ransport at ion providers and privat e boat ers resource management approaches (e.g., the receiving permits. The park would therefore Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy), strive to ensure that potential visitor use the establishment of a research natural area impact s would not compromise t he fort ’s zone, and visitor permitting requirements historic integrity or compound the woul d all provide posit ive beneficial effect s deterioration occurring as a result of the that would check or abate adverse effects in harsh marine environment. The park staff the future. would continue to apply stabilization measures to arrest deterioration and, as Alt hough the park staff would be in a bett er necessary, restrict visitor access to sensitive position to proactively manage and protect areas that require remedial preservation cultural resources by implementing these treatment. No adverse effect on significant measures, the immensity of Fort Jefferson historic features would be expected from and the unique challenges it presents for expanding and rehabilitating the Fort comprehensive preservation in its isolated Jefferson visit or cent er and upgrades of marit ime sett ing would cont inue to be a staff/visitor quarters within the fort major cultural resource management issue. casemates.

The proposed extension of the dock to Conclusion accommodate concession vessel(s) would require an archeological assessment to Implementing this alternative would be ident ify pot ent ial submerged cult ural expected to have no adverse effect on resources in the area of the dock extension. historic properties and would provide major If significant sit es were found that could not long-term benefits for the preservation and be avoided by construct ion, dat a recovery protection of cultural resources. In excavations, or other approved mitigation comparison with alternative C, incremental- measures would be implement ed before ly great er cult ural resource prot ect ion would starting construction. result from the elimination of private boats from the research natural area zone and the

170 Impacts on Cultural Resources requirement that privat e boat ers obt ain The requirement that visitors receive a permits for activities in the natural/cultural permit to enter the research natural area zone. The park staff’s ability to proactively zone would provide an effective means of manage cultural resources and monitor impart ing the requirement s for prot ect ing visitor use impact s would be subst ant ially cultural resources and the penalties for enhanced wit h the adopt ion of the dist urbance. It would also allow the park to Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy, more closely monitor the distribution and limitations on visitor numbers, permitting types of visitor activities occurring over a requirement s, and the adopt ion of a research wi de area of the park, which would benefit natural area zone. cultural resource management objectives. In collaboration with the National Park In common with all alternatives, ongoing Service, commercial tour operators would stabilization and preservation maintenance assume a substantial role in providing woul d have moderat e t o major long-t erm visitors with information regarding cultural benefits on Fort Jefferson and (as necessary) resource prot ect ion. This would have the Loggerhead Key historic district. The positive benefits, particularly if NPS staffing expansion and rehabilitation of casemates levels remain inadequate to effectively for the visitor cent er and housing would be impart this information to visitors. sensitively carried out, protecting the fort’s historic fabric and struct ural int egrity. All In addit ion to t he cont inuat ion of NPS preservat ion undert akings would be carried cult ural resource policies and prot ect ive out in accordance with NPS policies and measures, t he park would undert ake t he st andards and would have no adverse effect comprehensive protection of shipwreck sites on the national register significance of under provisions of the Subm erged Cultural historic properties. Resources Strategy. Among its provisions, a systematic and multidisciplinary monitoring To ensure t hat pot ent ial archeological program would be implement ed to assess resources are avoided or mit igat ed, impacts, analyze and compare changed site archeological assessment s would be required conditions, and provide the basis for for areas of construct ion-relat ed dist urbance appropriate treatment or remedial action. An associated with extension of the dock. effective monitoring program would have to be in place before any site was opened to recreational diving. Mooring buoys would ALTERNATIVE E be used t o keep divers in approved locat ions, and sensitive sites would remain off-limits Analysi s except for approved research purposes.

The extension of the resource natural zone Heavy visit or use would cont inue to be to the majority of the park would result in expected at Fort Jefferson, which would the greatest degree of cultural resource remain the initial destination for commercial protection in comparison with the other t ransport at ion providers and privat e boat ers alternatives. The emphasis on scientific receiving permits. The park staff would research proposed under this alternative t herefore strive to ensure t hat pot ent ial would support the archeological research visitor use impacts would not compromise objectives identified in the Subm erged the fort’s historic integrity or compound the Cultural Resources Strategy (see appendix deterioration occurring as a result of the H). Archeologist s could comprehensively harsh marine environment. The park staff analyze and investigate the park’s sub- would continue to apply stabilization merged cultural resources with a substan- measures to arrest deterioration and, as tially reduced risk that valuable site data necessary, restrict visitor access to sensitive might be lost due to visitor impacts. areas requiring remedial preservation

171 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES treatment. No adverse effect on significant comprehensive preservation in its isolated historic features would be expected from marit ime sett ing would cont inue to be a expansion and rehabilitation of the Fort major cultural resource management issue. Jefferson visit or cent er and upgrades of the staff/visitor quarters in the fort casemates. Conclusion

Cumulative Impacts Implementing this alternative would be expected to have no adverse effect on Significant cultural resources in the park historic properties and would provide major have sustained adverse effects from both long-term benefits for the preservation and natural causes (the harsh marine protection of cultural resources. In environment, wave and st orm damage, et c.) comparison with the other alternatives, the and human impact s. Hurricanes during the greatest degree of cultural resource last century, for example, seriously damaged protection would result from the extension light houses on Loggerhead and Garden of the research natural area zone and visitor Keys, and Fort Jefferson’s exposed masonry permitting requirements to the majority of continues to spall and deteriorate. Shipwreck the park. The park staff’s ability to sit es face ongoing dist urbance from nat ural proactively manage cultural resources and processes and the impacts of recreational monitor visitor use impact s would be divers. In conjunction with increasing substantially enhanced with the adoption of numbers of park visitors, a corresponding the Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy, potential for further adverse effects on limitations on visitor numbers, permitting submerged and land-based cultural resources requirement s, and the adopt ion of a might be expected. However, along with widespread research natural area zone. NPS policies for preserving and protecting cultural resources, additional measures to In common with all alternatives, ongoing limit visitor numbers in certain areas of the stabilization and preservation maintenance park, the implementation of systematic woul d have moderat e t o major long-t erm resource management approaches (e.g., the benefits on Fort Jefferson and (as necessary) Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy), the Loggerhead Key historic district. the establishment of a research natural area Expansion and rehabilitation of casemates zone, and visitor permitting requirements for the visitor cent er and housing would be woul d all provide posit ive beneficial effect s sensitively carried, protecting the fort’s that would check or abate adverse effects in historic fabric and struct ural int egrity. All the future. preservat ion undert akings would be carried out in accordance with NPS policies and Alt hough the park staff would be in a bett er st andards and would have no adverse effect position to proactively manage and protect on the national register significance of cultural resources by implementing these historic properties. measures, the immensity of Fort Jefferson and the unique challenges it presents for

172 IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE

METHODOLOGY Intensity

This impact analysis evaluates four aspects The intensity of the impact considers of visitor experience, including diversity of whether the impact to visitor experience visitor activities, interpretation and woul d be negligible, minor, moderat e, or orientation, visitor facilities and services, major. Negligible impacts are effects con- and visitor experience values. Analysis is sidered not det ectable to the visit or and conducted in terms of how the visitor would have no discernable effect. Minor experience might vary by applying different impacts are effects that would be slightly management zones in the alternatives. det ect able but not expect ed to have an over- Analysis is qualitative rather than quantita- all effect on the visitor experience. Moderate tive because of the conceptual nature of the impact s would be clearly det ect able by the alternatives. Consequently, professional visitor and could have an appreciable effect judgment was used to reach reasonable on the visitor experience. Major impacts conclusions as to the intensity and duration would have a substantial and noticeable of potential impacts. effect on the visitor experience and could permanently alter various aspects of the visitor experience. Basis of Analysis

Diversity of Visitor Activities. The Duration analysis of effects on activities is based on whether there was a complete loss, addition, The durat ion of the impact considers expansion, or a change in access to or whether the impact would occur for a short availability of a recreational opportunity, term and be temporary in nature and associ- and how the management zones would ated with transitional types of activities, or if affect group and individual opportunities. the impact would occur over a long term and have permanent effect on the visitor In te rpretation an d O rien tation . The experience, such as no recreational fishing analysis of interpretation and orientation is in t he research nat ural area. based on whether there would be a change in the availability of education programs resulting from management zone application Type of Impact or other actions. Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether Visitor Facilities and Services The they are beneficial or adverse to visitor analysis discusses impacts on access to experience. Beneficial impacts would visitor facilities and services provided by the provide greater availability of a recreational Park Service and commercial services in opportunity or educational program, other relation to management zone application and services, and types of experiences. Adverse other actions. impacts would reduce access or availability to these four facets of visitor experience. Visitor Experience Values. The impact analysis associated with visitor experience values is based on whether there would be a change in opport unit ies for solit ude, tranquility, challenge, adventure, and freedom to travel throughout the park.

173 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

ALTERNATIVE A establishing an interagency visitor facility in Key West, expanding the visitor center at Analysi s the fort, and conducting additional planning to improve interpretation and orientation. Under alternative A, the current availability These actions would provide a wide variety and diversity of recreat ional opport unit ies of interpret ive media, a broad scope of woul d cont inue as managed. Act ivit ies in- topics, and in-depth educational programs cluding t ouring the fort , snorkeling, scuba that would enhance visitors’ understanding diving, fishing, boat ing, swimming, camp- of the park’s cultural and natural resources ing, kayaking, and viewing wildlife would and the need for preserving them. cont inue to be available at their current levels and locations. Access to areas of the The Key West visitor facility would park beyond Garden Key would cont inue to introduce Dry Tortugas to people who might be primarily by private boat or expensive not be aware of the park. For visitors with- charters rather than by commercial ferries. out the ability to visit the park, expanded interpretation at Key West would result in With no defined limits on numbers of visi- the park’s being accessible (program- tors under the no-action alternative, some mat ically) through video shows, displays, activities could become crowded and change and interpretive talks in lieu of actual travel the character of these activities, which to the park. Pre-visit information would tell woul d affect t he qualit y of t he visitor visitors of park conditions and inform them experience. For example, boating, fishing, of limited facilities in the park and the need diving, snorkeling, and swimming in high t o be self-sust ained. T his informat ion also use areas could become a more social rather woul d give t ravelers the opport unity to than solitary experience. Crowded condi- choose ahead of time from a variety of t ions would be magnified in the campground visitor activities. Alternative A would have a and around the fort, especially as competi- major long-term beneficial impact on the tion grew for facilities. Increased visitation interpretation and orientation aspect of would eventually lead to a deterioration of visitor experience. resources in high use areas, which would result in a corresponding decline in the With the exception of adding the visitor quality of visitor experience. Although there facility in Key West and expanding the woul d be a diverse range of act ivit ies visitor center in the fort, the availability and available, increasing visit at ion would result diversity of visitor facilities and services in a long-term, minor adverse impact on woul d not change from their current trends. visitor activities. The campground, swim beach, dingy beach, rest rooms, and dock would not be expanded. Interpretive and educational services avail- Commercial ferry service would continue to able at Fort Jefferson and by commercial provide transportation to the park. Charter services providers en route to and at Garden boat s would provide int rapark travel. There Key would cont inue. Educat ion opport uni- woul d cont inue to be no services at the fort t ies for privat e boat ers would cont inue to be to provide visitors with food or convenience random and limit ed. Wit h no addit ional items. interpretive personnel at the fort, guided tours and special programs by park rangers Currently, the park is meeting visitor woul d remain limit ed. demand for camping and dock space, but not all visitors have an opportunity for guided However, the availability and diversity of tours of the fort. Overall, park visitation interpretation and orientation programs and would increase over existing levels, visitor services would be expanded under although the increase over the life of this alternative A through three actions — plan is not quantifiable. It is expected that

174 Impacts on Visitor Experience increases in visitation levels would occur Cumulative Impacts primarily during the current peak periods and would largely be day users and private Coordination with the Florida Keys National boat ers. (Current ly, limit s are imposed only Marine Sanctuary in their planning efforts by the number of people commercial vessels and participation in the South Florida are allowed to bring to the park and by the Ecosystem Restoration Task Force could number of private boats the dock space and provide an avenue to make visitors to the anchorage can accommodate at Garden park aware of the interrelationship of lands Key.) under various jurisdictions. Visitors would have the opportunity to learn from various Without limitations on visitation numbers, sources regarding the importance of the the potential exists for a decrease in access South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts to facilities and services for future visitors. in a rapidly growing and encroaching urban Some visitors would be forced to change environment. Participation in the Coral Reef their plans if unable to secure a campground T ask Force would pot ent ially assist the Park site, for example, and would likely need to Service in presenting information on return to the mainland. Competition for dock international efforts to protect and restore space and anchorage would increase for coral reefs around the world. Visitors would privat e boat ers and commercial service gain a comprehensive understanding of the providers. The lack of access to visitor South Florida region and an enhanced scope facilities and services would have a long- of knowledge extending beyond local t erm, moderat e, adverse impact on the boundaries. visitor experience as a result of implementing alternative A. In addit ion, knowledge from research project s in the region and beyond would Under alternative A, access to the park provide visit ors wit h a broad scope of new woul d cont inue as current ly managed. and up-t o-dat e informat ion regarding nat ural P rivat e boat ers and chart er boat s would and cultural resources. Visitors to the park cont inue to have freedom to t ravel through- also could have enhanced opport unit ies to out most of the park and participate in self- learn of the variety of experiences available initiated experiences with few restrictions. regionally and internationally. Information, Opportunities for solitude and tranquility, orient at ion, and int erpret ive programs and challenge, and adventure in remote, near- activities, combined with similar activities in pristine areas of the park would remain other federal, st at e, and local areas, would unchanged. People coming to the park by result in beneficial cumulative impacts on commercial ferries would not have access to the overall visitor experience. The intensity the same level of solitude and tranquility, and durat ion of the cumulat ive impact would challenge, and adventure as private boaters depend on the number and type of actions because they would remain limited primarily taken to implement the above planning to activities on Garden Key. An increase in efforts. visitation would potentially result in increased crowding and noise, especially around Garden Key. If alternative A was Conclusion implemented, continued increases in the number of visitors could result in long-term, The diversity of visitor opportunities avail- moderate adverse impacts on visitor able in the park would cont inue, but experience values for most of the park’s increases in visitation could result in visitors. changes to accessibility and affect visitor ex- perience values. Implementing alternative A woul d result in minor to moderat e long-t erm

175 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES adverse impacts on these aspects of the Establishing maximum numbers of visitors visitor experience. for sites would allow for an increase in visitor numbers over current levels but Visit ors would cont inue to benefit from woul d dist ribut e visitors among a number of interpretive programs at Fort Jefferson and resources. Dispersal over a broad area would en route to the park, but NPS programs reduce crowding and enhance visitor experi- would be still be conducted on a limited ence values by giving visitors improved basis especially in contacting private opportunities for solitude, tranquility, chal- boaters. However, establishing a visitor lenge, and adventure than would occur contact facility in Key West would have under conditions with no restrictions. As major long-term beneficial impacts on the described in alt ernat ive A, privat e boat ers visitor experience by providing enhanced woul d have great er opport unit ies to experi- interpretation and orientation. ence these values than would commercial ferry passengers whose activities would be Completion of and implementation of an centered primarily at Garden Key. interpretive plan and a wayside exhibit plan would have major long-term benefits on the Visitor facilities and services currently visitor experience by providing tools to available would cont inue, and est ablishing foster public awareness and appreciation of limits at selected areas (see table 1) would the park’s natural and historical features, maximize opportunities to access facilities promot ing an understanding of ecological such as the campground and dock. concepts and relevance of historical Implementing alternative B would have knowledge, and instilling a sense of long-term minor beneficial impacts on stewardship towards the resources. visitor activities, visitor experience values, and access to facilities and services. Visit ors could benefit from enhanced interpretation and orientation resulting from Some visitors might experience a feeling of NPS coordination with other planning intrusion and loss of privacy when park staff efforts, including the Florida Keys National conduct monitoring activities. These activi- Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida t ies would include invest igat ing the locat ion Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. of a boat’s anchor or observing visitors’ contact with reef organisms when snorkeling or diving. Monitoring activities would have ALTERNATIVE B short-term minor adverse impacts on visitor experience values. Analysi s Establishing the visitor contact facility at Under alternative B, visitor activities that Key West would have the same long-term are currently available would remain, major beneficial impact s as described in including boat ing, fishing, diving, snorkel- alternative A on the interpretation and ing, camping, swimming, kayaking, orientation aspect of visitor experience. picnicking, and touring the fort. The Visitors would be able to learn about park management of these activities would conditions and availability of facilities and change somewhat in that the park would services in advance and preplan their visit. establish maximum numbers of visitors appropriate in specific areas along with desired visit or behaviors and st andards for Cumulative Impacts resource conditions. Mooring buoys and park st aff would guide visit ors to specific Coordination with the Florida Keys National areas to engage in activities such as Marine Sanctuary in their planning efforts snorkeling and diving. and participation in the South Florida

176 Impacts on Visitor Experience

Ecosystem Restoration Task Force could sense of intrusion resulting in a short-term provide an avenue to make visitors to the minor adverse impact. park aware of the interrelationship of lands under various jurisdictions. Visitors would Establishing a visitor contact facility in Key have the opportunity to learn from various West would have major long-t erm beneficial sources regarding the importance of the impacts on the visitor experience by South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts providing enhanced interpretation and in a rapidly growing and encroaching urban orient at ion. environment. Participation in the Coral Reef T ask Force would pot ent ially assist the Park Completion of and implementation of an Service in presenting information on inter- interpretive plan and a wayside exhibit plan national efforts to protect and restore coral would have major long-term benefits on the reefs around the world. Visit ors would gain visitor experience by providing tools to a comprehensive understanding of the Sout h foster public awareness and appreciation of Florida region and an enhanced scope of the park’s natural and historical features, knowledge extending beyond local promot ing an understanding of ecological boundaries. concepts and relevance of historical knowledge, and instilling a sense of In addit ion, knowledge from research stewardship towards the resources. project s in the region and beyond would provide visit ors wit h a broad scope of new Visit ors could benefit from enhanced and up-t o-dat e informat ion regarding nat ural interpretation and orientation resulting from and cultural resources. Visitors to the park NPS coordination with other planning also could have enhanced opport unit ies to efforts, including the Florida Keys National learn of the variety of experiences available Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida regionally and internationally. Information, Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. orient at ion, and int erpret ive programs and activities, combined with similar activities in other federal, st at e, and local areas, would ALTERNATIVE C result in beneficial cumulative impacts on the overall visitor experience. The intensity Analysi s and durat ion of the cumulat ive impact would depend on the number and type of actions Implementing alternative C would improve taken to implement the above planning the visitor experience by providing oppor- efforts. tunities for visitors to travel in tours to areas of the park beyond Garden Key that are currently available to private boaters and Conclusion charter boats only. The use of commercial services to provide travel within the park The diversity of visitor activities in the park would give more visitors the opportunity to woul d cont inue. Est ablishing maximum enjoy near-pristine resources, especially in numbers of visitors at specific sites and the research natural area, and engage in dispersing them over a number of resources activities such as snorkeling at coral reefs woul d improve opport unit ies for solit ude, and diving to shipwrecks. Self-cont ained tranquility, challenge, and adventure and ferry operat ions would provide a level of would reduce crowding at park facilities. comfort and services the park is unable to These improvements would have long-term provide within the limitations of its facilities minor beneficial impacts on visitor activi- and the opportunity to stay overnight in the ties, visitor experience values, and access to park. facilities and services. During monitoring activities, some visitors might experience a

177 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Recreational fishing would not be permitted result in long-term moderate beneficial in t he research nat ural area, which would impacts on visitor experience values. decrease the diversity of visitor activities for Some visitors might experience a feeling of some park visitors. However, recreational intrusion and loss of privacy when park staff fishing would still be allowed in the historic conduct monitoring activities. These activi- preservat ion/adapt ive use and nat ural/ t ies would include invest igat ing the locat ion cultural zones. Visitors in these zones would of a boat’s anchor in the natural/cultural be expected to encounter more recreational zone or observing visitor contact with reef fishermen than if they were dispersed over organisms when snorkeling or diving. the entire park. Implementing alternative C Monitoring activities would have short-term would have a long-term, minor adverse minor adverse impacts on some visitors affect on recreat ional fishermen, but overall, seeking solit ude. opportunities to experience diverse activities woul d be enhanced result ing in long-t erm Current visitor facilities and services would major beneficial impact s on t he visit or continue. Establishing limits on facilities experience. and services and at selected areas (see table 1) could be an inconvenience to some In the management of visitor act ivit ies, the visitors but would have a long-term park would establish the maximum numbers beneficial impact on overall visitor of visitors appropriate in specific areas along experience. Most visitors would be able to wit h desired visitor behaviors and standards experience the values for which the park for resource condit ions. Mooring buoys and was est ablished bet t er, including prist ine park st aff would guide visit ors to specific resources, solitude, quiet, and tranquility. areas to engage in activities such as Instituting a reservation system for the snorkeling and diving. Establishing campground would ensure t hat space maximum numbers of visitors for sites without crowding was available for visitors woul d dist ribut e visitors among a number of when they arrive. Limiting the numbers of resources. Dispersal over a broad area would visitors that arrive on the ferry and seaplanes reduce crowding and enhance visitor would also ensure that facilities and popular experience values by giving visitors act ivit y sit es were not crowded and t hat park improved opportunities for solitude, values were maintained. By limiting the tranquility, challenge, and adventure as trips and capacity for the seaplanes there opposed to conditions with no limitations. woul d be less noise int rusion near the fort from takeoffs and landings. T he seaplane Requiring a permit for privat e boat ers to use limits would be intended to encourage fewer the park would cause some boaters to trips with larger capacity planes, which experience a loss of freedom and feel could result in more time in the park for air inconvenienced, especially those who have taxi visitors to participate in activities and previously traveled in the park without a thus enhance their experience. permit. Establishing the visitor contact facility at Visitors on tours to areas beyond Garden Key West would have the same long-term Key would have a more structured major beneficial impact s as described in experience and less freedom than private alternative A on the interpretation and boaters. However, they would experience a orientation aspect of visitor experience. level of challenge and advent ure not Visitors would be able to learn about park currently available to most of the park’s conditions and the availability of facilities visitors. As a member of a small tour group, and services in advance and preplan their visitors would experience tranquility and visit. solitude in the vast expanse of ocean and sky. Implementing alternative C would

178 Impacts on Visitor Experience

The impact on visitors of establishing an vide visitors with a broad scope of new and entrance fee would depend on the amount of up-to-date information regarding natural and the fee. However, it would not be expected cultural resources. Visitors to the park also to deter visitors from coming to the park. could have enhanced opportunities to learn The impact of charging visitors an ent rance of the variety of experiences available fee would have long-term negligible to regionally and internationally. Information, minor adverse impacts on visitor use. orient at ion, and int erpret ive programs and activities, combined with similar activities in Implementing alternative C would provide other federal, st at e, and local areas, would addit ional educat ional opport unit ies. Visi- result in beneficial cumulative impacts on t ors in tour groups would gain knowledge the visitor experience. The intensity and incorporated into recreational activities and durat ion of the cumulat ive impact would presented by trained commercial tour staff depend on the number and type of actions en route to the park, at Fort Jefferson, and taken to implement the above planning on tours beyond Garden Key. Private efforts. boaters would receive information about preserving the park’s resources when they Prohibit ing recreat ional fishing in a port ion obt ain a permit at the fort . Informat ion of the park, in the Florida Keys National woul d be expect ed to be up-t o-dat e as a Marine Sanctuary ecological reserve, and in result of research efforts by park scientists Tortugas South and those portions of and investigators. The beneficial impacts of Tortugas North that are in state waters or these interpretation and orientation aspects under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico on the visitor experience would be long-term Fishery Management Council would have and major. short-term adverse cumulative impacts on visitor experience values. Reducing the number of areas that allow recreational Cumulative Impacts fishing would result in an increase in visitors to areas permitting the activity. There would Coordination with the Florida Keys National likely be fewer opportunities to experience Marine Sanctuary in their planning efforts solitude and tranquility, resulting in a lower and participation in the South Florida quality experience than currently anticipa- Ecosystem Restoration Task Force could t ed. Fishermen would pot ent ially cat ch provide an avenue to make visitors to the fewer fish. However, the experience would park aware of the interrelationship of lands be enhanced in the future for fishermen as under various jurisdictions. Visitors would marine populations increase in size and have the opportunity to learn from various number as a result of establishing zones sources regarding the importance of the dedicated to improving the spawning South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts population. in a rapidly growing and encroaching urban environment. Participation in the Coral Reef T ask Force would pot ent ially assist the Park Conclusion Service in presenting information on international efforts to protect and restore Visitors would be able to travel to areas coral reefs around the world. Visitors would beyond Garden Key on commercial service gain a comprehensive understanding of the vessels and experience near-pristine South Florida region and an enhanced scope resources, solitude, tranquility, challenge, of knowledge extending beyond local and advent ure previously available only to boundaries. privat e boat ers and chart er boat s. Imple- ment ing alt ernat ive C would result in long- In addition, knowledge from research pro- term moderate beneficial impacts on visitor ject s in the region and beyond would pro- experience values.

179 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

The diversity of act ivit ies would be reduce d increased fish populations as a result of for some visitors by prohibiting recreational various planning efforts that would establish fishing in the research natural area zone. zones dedicated to improving spawning Some boaters would experience a loss of population. freedom with the need to obtain a permit to travel in this zone. Implementing alternative C would have a long-term, minor adverse ALTERNATIVE D effect on recreat ional fishermen and a short - term minor adverse effect on some private Implementing alternative D would improve boaters. Overall, opportunities to experience the visitor experience by providing oppor- diverse activities would be enhanced for tunities for visitors to travel in tours to areas more visitors than currently and result in of the park beyond Garden Key that current- long-term major beneficial impacts on this ly are available to private boaters and aspect of the visitor experience. Establishing charter boats only. The use of commercial limits on numbers of visitors at selected services to provide travel within the park areas (see table 1) would have long-term would give more visitors the opportunity to minor beneficial effects on facilities and enjoy near-pristine resources and engage in services. activities such as snorkeling and diving over coral reefs and shipwrecks. Self-contained Establishing a visitor contact facility in Key ferry operat ions would provide a level of West, educat ing visitors on tours, and comfort and services that the park is unable requiring privat e boat ers to obtain a permit to provide within the limitations of its and learn about preserving the park’s facilities and the opportunity to stay resources would have major long-term overnight in the park. beneficial impacts on the visitor experience by providing enhanced interpretation and In alternative D, boating and recreational orient at ion. fishing would not be permitt ed in the research natural area, which would decrease Completion of and implementation of an the diversity of visitor activities for some interpretive plan and a wayside exhibit plan park visitors. However, boating and recrea- would have major long-term benefits on the tional fishing would still be allowed in the visitor experience by providing tools to historic preservation/ adaptive use and foster public awareness and appreciation of natural/cultural zones. Visitors in these the park’s natural and historical features, zones would be expect ed to encount er more promot ing an understanding of ecological boaters and recreational fishermen than if concepts and relevance of historical they were dispersed over the entire park. knowledge, and instilling a sense of Implementing alternative D would have a stewardship towards the resources. long-term, minor adverse affect on boaters and recreational fishermen. However, most Visit ors could benefit from enhanced present-day activities would still be avail- interpretation and orientation resulting from able to a wider spectrum of visitors in a NPS coordination with other planning broader area of the park. In addition, these efforts, including the Florida Keys National visitors would encount er resources of high Marine Sanctuary, the U.S. Fish and integrity, especially in the research natural Wildlife Service, the state, the South Florida area. Overall, opportunities to experience Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, and diverse activities would be enhanced, Monroe Count y. resulting in long-term major beneficial impacts on the visitor experience. There would be a decrease in areas available for recreational fishing. However, in the In the management of visitor act ivit ies, the future fishermen would benefit from park would establish maximum numbers of

180 Impacts on Visitor Experience visitors appropriate in specific areas, along visitors but would have a long-term wit h desired visitor behaviors and standards beneficial impact on overall visitor for resource condit ions. Mooring buoys and experience. Most visitors would be able to park st aff would guide visit ors to specific experience the values for which the park areas to engage in activities such as was est ablished bet t er, including prist ine snorkeling and diving. Establishing resources, solitude, quiet, and tranquility. maximum numbers of visitors for sites Instituting a reservation system for the woul d dist ribut e visitors among a number of campground would ensure t hat space resources. Dispersal over a broad area would without crowding was available for visitors reduce crowding and enhance visitor when they arrive. Limiting the numbers of experience values by giving visitors visitors that arrive on the ferry and seaplanes improved opportunities for solitude, would also ensure that facilities and popular tranquility, challenge, and adventure as act ivit y sit es were not crowded and t hat park opposed to conditions with no limitations. values were maintained. By limiting the trips and capacity for the seaplanes there Visitors on tours to areas beyond Garden woul d be less noise int rusion near the fort Key would have a more structured from takeoffs and landings. T he seaplane experience and less freedom than private limits would be intended to encourage fewer boaters. However, they would experience a trips with larger capacity planes, which level of challenge and advent ure not could result in more time in the park for air currently available to most of the park’s taxi visitors to participate in activities and visitors. As a member of a small tour group, thus enhance their experience. visitors would experience tranquility and solitude in the vast expanse of ocean and Establishing the visitor contact facility at sky. Implementing alternative D would Key West would have the same long-term result in long-term moderate beneficial major beneficial impact s as described in impacts on visitor experience values. alternative A on the interpretation and orientation aspect of the visitor experience. Requiring a permit for privat e boat ers to use Visitors would be able to learn about park the park (historic preservation/adaptive use conditions and availability of facilities and zone) and prohibiting them in the research services in advance and preplan their visit. natural area would cause some boaters to experience a loss of freedom and feel Implementing alternative D would provide inconvenienced, especially those who have addit ional educat ional opport unit ies. Visi- previously traveled in the park without a t ors in tour groups would gain knowledge permit. Some visitors would experience a incorporated into recreational activities and feeling of intrusion and loss of privacy when presented by trained commercial tour staff park staff conduct monitoring activities. en route to the park, at Fort Jefferson, and These activities would include investigating on tours beyond Garden Key. Private the location of a boat’s anchor or observing boaters going into the natural/cultural zone visitor contact with reef organisms when would receive information about preserving snorkeling or diving. The permit process and the park’s resources when they obtain a monitoring activities would have short-term permit at the fort. Interpretive information minor adverse impacts on some visitor woul d be expect ed to be up-t o-dat e as a experience values such as freedom to travel result of research efforts by park scientists and solit ude. and investigators. Beneficial impacts of these interpretation and orientation aspects Current visitor facilities and services would on the visitor experience would be long term continue. Establishing limits on facilities and major. and services and at selected areas (see table 1) could be an inconvenience to some

181 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts fishing would result in an increase in visitors to areas permitting the activity. There likely Coordination with the Florida Keys National would be fewer opportunities to experience Marine Sanctuary in their planning efforts solitude and tranquility, resulting in a lower- and participation in the South Florida quality experience than currently anticipa- Ecosystem Restoration Task Force could t ed. Fishermen would pot ent ially cat ch provide an avenue to make visitors to the fewer fish. However, the experience would park aware of the interrelationship of lands be enhanced in the future for fishermen as under various jurisdictions. Visitors would marine populations increase in size and have the opportunity to learn from various number as a result of establishing zones sources regarding the importance of the dedicated to improving the spawning South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts population habitat. in a rapidly growing and encroaching urban environment. Participation in the Coral Reef T ask Force would pot ent ially assist the Park Conclusion Service in presenting information on international efforts to protect and restore Visitors would be able to travel to areas coral reefs around the world. Visitors would beyond Garden Key on commercial service gain a comprehensive understanding of the vessels and experience near-pristine South Florida region and an enhanced scope resources, solitude, tranquility, challenge, of knowledge extending beyond local and advent ure previously available only to boundaries. privat e boat ers and chart er boat s, result ing in long-term moderate beneficial impacts on In addit ion, knowledge from research visitor experience values. The diversity of project s in the region and beyond would act ivit ies would be reduce d for some visitors provide visit ors wit h a broad scope of new by prohibit ing recreat ional fishing and and up-t o-dat e informat ion regarding nat ural boating in the research natural area zone. and cultural resources. Visitors to the park Some boaters would experience a loss of also could have enhanced opport unit ies to freedom with the need to obtain a permit to learn of the variety of experiences available travel in the park. Implementing alternative regionally and internationally. Information, D would have a long-term, minor adverse orient at ion, and int erpret ive programs and effect on recreat ional fishermen and privat e activities, combined with similar activities in boaters. Overall, opportunities to experience other federal, st at e, and local areas, would diverse activities would be enhanced for result in beneficial cumulative impacts on more visitors than currently and result in the overall visitor experience. The intensity long-term major beneficial impacts on this and durat ion of the cumulat ive impact would aspect of the visitor experience. Establishing depend on the number and type of actions limits on numbers of visitors would have taken to implement the above planning long-term minor beneficial effects on efforts. facilities and services.

Prohibit ing recreat ional fishing in a port ion Establishing a visitor contact facility in Key of the park, in the Florida Keys National West, educat ing visitors on tours and Marine Sanctuary ecological reserve and in requiring privat e boat ers to obtain a permit Tortugas South and those portions of and learn about preserving the park’s Tortugas North that are in state waters or resources would have major long-term bene- under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico ficial impacts on the visitor experience by Fishery Management Council would have providing enhanced interpretation and short-term adverse cumulative impacts on orient at ion. visitor experience values. Reducing the number of areas that allow recreational

182 Impacts on Visitor Experience

Completion of and implementation of an preservation/ adaptive use zone, visitors interpretive plan and a wayside exhibit plan want ing to engage in boat ing and would have major long-term benefits on the recreational fishing activities would need to visitor experience by providing tools to go out side of the park. Rest rict ing privat e foster public awareness and appreciation of boat ing and eliminat ing recreat ional fishing the park’s natural and historical features, from the park would result in some private promot ing an understanding of ecological boaters, recreational fishermen, and charter concepts and relevance of historical boat s seeking other areas beyond the park. It knowledge, and instilling a sense of is anticipated that there would be a stewardship towards the resources. corresponding increase of visitors beyond the park in areas that allow these activities. Visit ors could benefit from enhanced There might be some minor crowding in interpretation and orientation resulting from these areas, which would result in long-term NPS coordination with other planning minor adverse impacts on recreational efforts, including the Florida Keys National fishermen and boat ers. Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Implementing alternative E would have a long-term, moderate adverse affect on There would be a decrease in areas available boaters and recreational fishermen. for recreational fishing. However, in the However, most present-day activities would future fishermen would benefit from still be available to a broader spectrum of increased fish populations as a result of visitors in a wider area of the park. In addi- various planning efforts that would establish tion, these visitors would encounter zones dedicated to improving spawning resources of high int egrit y. There would be a population habitat. significant reduction in opportunity for people to be out in the marine environment and their freedom of movement in this alter- ALTERNATIVE E native. Because visitor experience under this alt ernat ive would be highly struct ured and Implementing alternative E would improve opportunities for individual discovery or the visitor experience by providing choice of activities would be limited and opportunities for visitors to travel in tours to would fall to the prerogative of the tour areas of the park beyond Garden Key that operator, long-term moderate negative currently are available to private boaters and impact on the visitor experience would be charter boats only. The use of commercial expected. services to provide travel within the park woul d give more visit ors than current ly are In the management of visitor act ivit ies, the able t he opport unit y to enjoy near-pristine park would establish maximum numbers of resources and engage in activities such as visitors appropriate in specific areas, along snorkeling and diving over coral reefs and wit h desired visitor behaviors and standards shipwrecks. Self-cont ained ferry operat ions for resource conditions. Visitors on commer- would provide a level of comfort and cial tours would travel to specific areas to services the park is unable to provide within engage in activities such as snorkeling and the limitations of its facilities and the diving. Establishing maximum numbers of opportunity to stay overnight in the park. visitors for sit es would dist ribut e visitors among a number of resources. Dispersal Privat e boat ing would be rest ricted and over a broad area would reduce crowding recreat ional fishing would not be permitt ed and enhance visitor experience values by in the park, which would decrease the giving visitors of small tour groups diversity of visitor activities for park improved opportunities for solitude and visitors. With the exception of the historic

183 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES tranquility as opposed to conditions with no and services in advance and preplan their limitations. visit.

Visitors on tours to areas beyond Garden Implementing alternative E would provide Key would have a structured experience and addit ional educat ional opport unit ies. All less freedom to travel than is currently visitors would be educat ed about sensit ive possible. However, they would experience a resources. Visit ors in tour groups would level of challenge and advent ure not gain knowledge incorporated into recrea- currently available to most of the park’s tional activities and presented by trained visitors. Implementing alternative E would commercial tour staff en route to the park, at result in long-term moderate beneficial Fort Jefferson, and on tours beyond Garden impacts on visitor experience for those Key. Interpretive information would be visitors who have very limited experience in expected to be up-to-date as a result of marine areas and who rely on commercial research efforts by park scientists and t ours (not privat e boat s) for access. investigators. The beneficial impacts of these interpretation and orientation aspects Current visitor facilities and services would on the visitor experience would be long term continue. Establishing limits on facilities and major. and services and at selected areas (see table 1) could be an inconvenience to some visitors but would have a long-term Cumulative Impacts beneficial impact on overall visitor experience. Most visitors would be able to Coordination with the Florida Keys National experience the values for which the park Marine Sanctuary in their planning efforts was est ablished bet t er, including prist ine and participation in the South Florida resources, solitude, quiet, and tranquility. Ecosystem Restoration Task Force could Instituting a reservation system for the provide an avenue to make visitors to the campground would ensure t hat space park aware of the interrelationship of lands without crowding was available for visitors under various jurisdictions. Visitors would when they arrive. Limiting the numbers of have the opportunity to learn from various visitors that arrive on the ferry and seaplanes sources regarding the importance of the would also ensure that facilities and popular South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts act ivit y sit es were not crowded and t hat park in a rapidly growing and encroaching urban values were maintained. By limiting the environment. Participation in the Coral Reef trips and capacity for the seaplanes there T ask Force would pot ent ially assist the Park woul d be less noise int rusion near the fort Service in presenting information on from takeoffs and landings. T he seaplane international efforts to protect and restore limits would be intended to encourage fewer coral reefs around the world. Visitors would trips with larger capacity planes, which gain a comprehensive understanding of the could result in more time in the park for air South Florida region and an enhanced scope taxi visitors to participate in activities and of knowledge extending beyond local thus enhance their experience. boundaries.

Establishing the visitor contact facility at In addit ion, knowledge from research Key West would have the same long-term project s in the region and beyond would major beneficial impact s as described in provide visit ors wit h a broad scope of new alternative A on the interpretation and and up-t o-dat e informat ion regarding nat ural orientation aspect of visitor experience. and cultural resources. Visitors to the park Visitors would be able to learn about park also could have enhanced opport unit ies to conditions and the availability of facilities learn of the variety of experiences available regionally and internationally. Information,

184 Impacts on Visitor Experience orient at ion, and int erpret ive programs and resulting in a long-term, moderate adverse activities, combined with similar activities in effect on recreat ional fishermen and privat e other federal, st at e, and local areas, would boaters. Overall, opportunities to experience result in beneficial cumulative impacts on diverse activities would be enhanced for the overall visitor experience. The intensity more visitors than currently and result in and durat ion of the cumulat ive impact would long-term major beneficial impacts on this depend on the number and type of actions aspect of the visitor experience. Establishing taken to implement the above planning limits on numbers of visitors at selected efforts. areas (see table 1) would have long-term minor beneficial effects on facilities and Prohibiting recreational fishing in most of services. the park, in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ecological reserve, and in Establishing a visitor contact facility in Key Tortugas South and those portions of West, educat ing visitors on tours, and Tortugas North that are in state waters or requiring private boaters obtain a permit and under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico learn about preserving the park’s resources Fishery Management Council would have would have major long-term beneficial short-term adverse cumulative impacts on impacts on the visitor experience by pro- visitor experience values. Reducing the viding enhanced interpretation and number of areas that allow recreational orient at ion. fishing would result in an increase in visitors to areas permitting the activity. There likely Completion of and implementation of an would be fewer opportunities to experience interpretive plan and a wayside exhibit plan solitude and tranquility, resulting in a lower- would have major long-term benefits on the quality experience than currently anticipa- visitor experience by providing tools to t ed. Fishermen would pot ent ially cat ch foster public awareness and appreciation of fewer fish. However, the experience would the park’s natural and historical features, be enhanced in the future for fishermen as promot ing an understanding of ecological marine populations increase in size and concepts and relevance of historical number as a result of establishing zones knowledge, and instilling a sense of dedicated to improving the spawning stewardship towards the resources. population habitat. Visit ors could benefit from enhanced int er- pretation and orientation resulting from NPS Conclusion coordination with other planning efforts, including the Florida Keys National Marine Visitors would be able to travel to areas Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem beyond Garden Key on commercial service Restoration T ask Force. vessels and experience near-pristine resources, solitude, tranquility, challenge, There would be a decrease in areas available and adventure currently available only to for recreational fishing. However, in the privat e boat ers and chart er boat s, result ing future fishermen would benefit from in long-term moderate beneficial impacts on increased fish populations as a result of visitor experience values. The diversity of various planning efforts that would establish act ivit ies would be reduce d for some visitors zones dedicated to improving spawning by prohibit ing recreat ional fishing and population. rest rict in g p riv at e bo at in g in th e park ,

185 IMPACTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

METHODOLOGY det ect able but not expect ed to have an overall effect . Moderat e impact s would be The impact analysis evaluated three separate clearly detectable and could have an socioeconomic areas including tourism and appreciable effect. Major impacts would recreation, the local and regional economy, have a subst ant ial influence on and could and commercial services. permanently alter the socioeconomic environment. A quantitative analysis was not conducted because the additional cost of that analysis was not considered to be reasonably related Duration to the expected increase in the quantity and/or quality of relevant information. The The durat ion of the impact considers National Park Service believes that a whether the impact would occur for a short qualitative analysis provides a sufficient term and be temporary in nature and associ- assessment of all relevant socioeconomic ated with transitional types of activities, or if impacts associated with this rulemaking. the impact would occur over a long term and have a permanent effect on the socioeconomic environment. Basis of Analysis

Tourism and Recre ati on. The impact Type of Impact analysis is discussed on the basis of changes in tourism and recreational opportunities at The impact s are evaluat ed in t erms of the county and regional level associated with whet her the impact would be beneficial or the implementation of each of the adverse to the socioeconomic environment. alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would improve the social or economic conditions Local and Re gional Economy. The in the county or region. Adverse socioeco- analysis qualitatively analyzes impacts of nomic impacts would negatively alter social potential changes in visitor spending and or economic conditions in the county or resultant contributions to the economy. region.

Commercial Services. The impact analysis qualitatively discusses the impacts of ALTERNATIVE A management zone application on current and potential concessioners. Analysi s

The implementation of alternative A would Intensity not be expected to result in changes to over- all tourism and recreational opportunities in The intensity of the impact considers Monroe County or the South Florida region. whether the impact would be negligible, The region’s resources, including local, minor, moderate, or major. Negligible st at e, and federal parks, would be expect ed impact s were considered undet ect able and to continue attracting visitors as currently woul d have no discernible effect on the experienced. Water-related activities, such socioeconomic environment. Minor impacts as boating and fishing, and land-based were effects on the socioeconomic opportunities, including biking and golfing, environment that would be slight ly woul d cont inue to be available.

186 Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment

Implementing alternative A would have woul d remain in effect or be slight ly negligible effects on tourism overall and on t ight ened, which could reduce t he amount of the availability of recreation opportunities in business operators conduct in the park. Monroe Count y and the South Florida Operators of large ferry-type vessels would Region. be limited to a combined total of 150 passengers per day, which would reduce A cont inuat ion of trends in current economic current incomes and have a minor economic condit ions would be ant icipat ed. Tourists impact on existing operators. Interpretive and ret ired resident s would cont inue to mat erials would cont inue to be provided to account for much of the county and region’s commercial operators for voluntary use income. The service and retail trade indus- within the park. Commercial operators tries would be expected to remain in the top would not have dedicated dock space, employment sectors of the county and assigned staff housing, or other assigned regional economy. facilities, and they would continue to be subject to time limits at the NPS dock and The multiagency visitor contact facility other park regulations, which would have no would be expected to attract more visitors to new impacts. There would be no new Key West with an enhanced interpretive impacts on commercial charter fishing program of the areas’ resources. Visitor operators. spending and cont ribut ions to the economy woul d increase proport ionally to the number of added visitors. Relat ive to the count y and Cumulative Impacts regional economic base, this increase would be anticipated to have long-term minor No known cumulative impacts on tourism, beneficial impacts on the economy. recreational opportunities, or the local and regional economy would be expected. Rehabilitating buildings in Key West for the visitor facility and staff housing and expanding the visitor center in the fort Conclusion woul d have a minor short -t erm beneficial effect on the county’s economy. The Implementing alternative A would have rehabilitation and expansion projects would negligible effects on tourism and the result in additional employment opportuni- availability of recreational opportunities in ties in the building trades during the period Monroe Count y and the South Florida of construct ion. Some ret ail businesses region. Diverse recreational activities would would have an increase in sales for pur- cont inue to be available. Tourism would chases of supplies and equipment for con- cont inue to account for much of the count y’s struction activities. Relative to the county’s income, and service and ret ail would remain employment and economic base, the eco- top employment sectors. nomic benefit from implementing alternative A would be short -t erm and minor. Establishing the multiagency contact facility could attract more visitors to Key West, Transportation to and within the park would result ing in minor long-t erm benefit s for the continue to be authorized by commercial use count y’s economy. Minor short-t erm eco- authorizations (CUAs). Basically, all nomic benefits would occur as a result of commercial operat ors now doing business in rehabilitation activities for the visitor the park, and perhaps additional operators, contact facility, park staff housing in Key woul d cont inue their operat ions wit h no West, and the expansion of the fort’s visitor significant changes. Current conditions in center. CUA permits that limit use for carrying capacity and resource protection purposes

187 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Impacts on commercial operators providing voluntary use within the park, although ferry services to the park and charter fishing operat ors would be st rongly encouraged to operat ors would be ant icipat ed to be minor. take advantage of the opportunity. Commercial operators would not have dedicated dock space, assigned staff ALTERNATIVE B housing, or other assigned facilities and they woul d cont inue to be subject to time limit s Analysi s at the NPS dock and ot her park regulat ions, which would have no new impacts. There As described in alt ernat ive A, implement ing woul d be no new impact s on commercial alternative B would not be expected to affect charter fishing operators. tourism or recreation activities in Monroe County or the Sout h Florida region. Cumulative Impacts Current t rends in cont ribut ions t o t he count y and regional economy by tourists and No known cumulative impacts on tourism, ret irees would likely cont inue. The service recreational opportunities, or the local and and ret ail trade indust ries would be expect ed regional economy would be expected. to remain in the top employment sectors of the county and regional economy. The economic benefits of the Key West facility Conclusion attracting visitors to the area would have the same long-t erm minor impact s on the Implementing alternative B would have economy as described in alt ernat ive A. negligible effects on tourism and the availability of recreational opportunities in The short-term minor beneficial impacts of Monroe Count y and the South Florida rehabilitating buildings for the Key West region. Diverse recreation activities would visitor contact facility and staff housing and cont inue to be available. Tourism would expanding the fort’s visitor center would be cont inue to account for much of the count y’s the same as described in alternative A. income, and service and ret ail would remain top employment sectors. Transportation to and within the park would continue to be authorized by commercial use Establishing the multiagency contact facility authorizations. Basically, all commercial could attract more visitors to Key West, operators now doing business in the park result ing in minor long-t erm benefit s for the could cont inue their operat ions wit h no count y’s economy. Minor short-t erm significant changes. Current conditions in economic benefits would occur as a result of CUA permits that limit use for carrying rehabilitation activities for the visitor capacity and resource protection purposes contact facility, park staff housing in Key woul d remain in effect and be tightened to West, and the expansion of the fort’s visitor reflect natural/cultural zone limits, which center. could slightly reduce the level of commer- cial use in the park and consequently the Limiting use for carrying capacity and income of some operat ors. Operat ors of resource protection purposes could decrease large ferry-type vessels would be limited to the level of commercial use in the park, with a combined total of 150 passengers per day, a proport ional reduct ion in some operators’ which would reduce current incomes and income. Impacts on commercial charter have a minor economic impact on existing fishing operators would be expect ed to be operators. Interpretive materials as well as minor. t raining by NPS st aff would cont inue to be available to commercial operators for

188 Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment

ALTERNATIVE C those services but are not awarded one of the two concessions contracts would experience Analysi s a major adverse impact. Several new job op- portunities with the concessioners would be Implementing alternative C would not be ant icipat ed, which would add income to the expected to affect tourism or recreation local economy that would offset the lost act ivit ies in Monroe Count y or the South income from current operators that do not Florida region. Eliminating recreational get the cont ract . However, overall impact s fishing from the research natural area zone on the regional economy would be in Dry Tortugas would likely result in some negligible. privat e recreat ional fishermen and chart er boat s seeking other areas wit hin or beyond Instituting carrying capacity limits on the the park. However, fishermen would not be concessioners could limit potential growth expected to discontinue this activity in the in a concessioner’s revenues. However, the Florida Keys. It would be ant icipat ed that National Park Service feels that these implementing alternative C would have impacts are by far offset by the beneficial long-term negligible impacts on the county impacts on resources and visitor experience. and regional tourism and recreat ional The proposed limit for the ferry (150) would act iv it ies. be half again as much as one operator is currently allowed. By limiting the number of As in alternative A, current trends in seaplane trips per day, for visitor experience cont ribut ions to the county and regional reasons, the National Park Service is trying economy by tourist s and ret irees would to encourage the use of larger capacity likely continue. The service and retail trade planes, which would be a more efficient industries would be expected to remain in operation for the concessioner. the top employment sectors of the county and regional economy. The economic The ferry cont ract would also include a benefits of the Key West facility attracting requirement to provide int rapark transport a- visitors to the area would have the same t ion and guided t ours wit hin the limit s of long-term minor impacts on the economy as established carrying capacities in the park. described in alt ernat ive A. This would be a new source of addit ional revenue for the concessioner, and it is antici- The short-term minor beneficial impacts of pated that this income could be substantial. rehabilitating buildings for the Key West This would also increase the number of visitor contact facility and staff housing and anticipated new job opportunities. To expanding the fort’s visitor center would be comply with this element of the contract, the same as described in alternative A. there would be the need for some capital investment. Some elements of the contract Visit or use management would significant ly woul d be provided to the concessioner by change in this alternative, and commercial the Park Service, such as required services would play an integral part in that interpretive and resource protection training. change. Transport at ion t o the park would be Other elements, such as operating a suitable authorized by two concession contracts — reservation system, would be an expense for one for seaplane service and another for the concessioner. The Park Service has ferry service. There would be a major analyzed this potential contract and believes beneficial economic impact for the two it to be economically feasible and in businesses that were awarded the contracts. compliance with the law requiring that the Except for private boaters and multiday concessioner be afforded a reasonable charters, the two concessioners would have opportunity to make a profit. exclusive right s to bring day use visit ors to the park. Operators who currently provide

189 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Commercial use authorizations would However, loss in revenue would be expected authorize other appropriate commercial to be short term. Protecting marine life by act ivit ies that begin and end outside the establishing no-fishing areas would increase park. These activities, including sailing the number and size of species, and these excursions, fishing charters, wildlife species would eventually migrate to areas viewing, and snorkel and dive trips, would outside the no-fishing zones. Dispersal of have to be overnight trips because of the t hese larger and more abundant populat ions cont ract ual obligat ions for day use act ivit ies would likely enhance fishing throughout the with the concessioner. This could limit some region for both recreational and commercial operators. Commercial use authorizations fishermen in the future. In addition, permit- woul d be limit ed, which might impact ting public access to minimally disturbed current permit holders and potential new areas would enhance the quality and value operators. Limits on the numbers of of nonconsumptive activities such as eco- passengers per trip and trips per year might t ourism, photography, recreat ional diving, impact some operators. fish watching, cultural activities, and wilderness experience. The economic This alt ernat ive would necessit at e guide benefits for nonconsumptive activities fishermen who operate within the research would potentially offset and could exceed natural area zone to relocate to another area, the current extractive value (Dixon and either within or outside of the park. The Sherman 1990). relocation would result in an inconvenience for these operators, but the sense of incon- venience would decrease over time as guides Conclusion adjust t o new restrict ions and guidelines. In addition, establishing the research natural Implementing alternative C would not be area zone would be ant icipat ed to produce expected to affect tourism or the availability economic benefits in the future resulting of recreational activities in the South Florida from a higher and sustained yield of region. Current trends in contribut ions to the healthier fish populations throughout the economy by ret irees and tourist s would region. Adverse impact s on guide fishermen cont inue. Alt hough fishing would be currently operating in the research natural eliminated from a portion of the park, the area zone would be short term and minor. Florida Keys would cont inue to att ract recreational fishermen to the area. Implementing alternative C would have Cumulative Impacts negligible effect s on the count y and regional economies. Prohibit ing recreat ional fishing in a port ion of the park, in the Florida Keys National Establishing the multiagency contact facility Marine Sanctuary ecological reserve, and in could attract more visitors to Key West, Tortugas South and those portions of Tortu- result ing in minor long-t erm benefit s to the gas North that are in st at e wat ers or under count y’s economy. Minor short-t erm the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico economic benefits would occur as a result of Fishery Management Council could have rehabilitation activities for the visitor adverse cumulative impacts on some busi- contact facility, park staff housing in Key nesses in the local and regional economy. West, and expansion of the Fort’s visit or Charter boat companies catering to recrea- center. t ional fishermen and support businesses such as fishing equipment suppliers could Awarding a concessions contract to one experience a loss of revenue. ferryboat business and one seaplane busi- ness would result in a long-term major economic benefit to the businesses receiving

190 Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment the contracts and a long-term major adverse and regional economy. The economic impact on current operators who were not benefits of the Key West facility attracting awarded a contract. Establishing intrapark visitors to the area would have the same t ransport at ion would provide addit ional long-term minor impacts on the economy as revenue opportunities for the concessioner described in alt ernat ive A. and more employment opportunities in the count y. T he added jobs woul d have a minor The short-term minor beneficial economic long-term beneficial impact on the economy. impacts of rehabilitating buildings for the Charter fishing operators could experience a Key West visitor contact facility and staff minor reduction in revenues from elimina- housing and expanding the fort’s visitor ting recreational fishing from the research cent er would be t he same as described in natural area of the park. However, other alternative A. opport unit ies would be available for CUA operators — such as overnight sailing The impacts of this alternative on the excursions, fishing charters, wildlife commercial operators and the National Park viewing, and snorkel and dive trips. Service would be essentially the same as described in alt ernat ive C. There could be The cumulative impacts of establishing no- slightly more opportunities for the fishing zones would have moderate long- concessioner to increase revenues in this term beneficial impacts on marine alternative because private boaters would populations, recreational and commercial not be allowed to dive, snorkel, anchor, or fishing, and the regional economy. fish in the research natural area zone except t hrough concessioner-guided t ours.

ALTERNATIVE D Cumulative Impacts Analysi s Prohibit ing recreat ional fishing in a port ion Implementing alternative D would not be of the park, in the Florida Keys National expected to affect tourism or recreational Marine Sanctuary ecological reserve, and in act ivit ies in Monroe Count y or the South Tortugas South and those portions of Flo rida Regio n . Elim in at in g p riv at e bo at in g Tortugas North that are in state waters or and recreational fishing from the research under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico nat ural area in Dry Tort ugas woul d likely Fishery Management Council would have result in some privat e boat ers, recreat ional adverse cumulative impacts on the local and fishermen, and charter boats seeking other regional economy. Charter boat companies areas within or beyond the park. However, catering to recreation fishermen and support recreational fishermen and boaters would businesses such as fishing equipment not be expected to discontinue these suppliers would experience a loss of activities in the Florida Keys. It would be revenue. anticipated that implementing alternative D woul d have negligible impact s on the county However, loss in revenue would be expected and regional tourism and recreat ional to be short term. Protecting marine life by act iv it ies. establishing no-fishing areas would increase the number and size of species, and these As described in alternative A, current trends species would eventually migrate to areas in cont ribut ions t o t he count y and regional outside the no-fishing zones. Dispersal of economy by tourist s and ret irees would t hese larger and more abundant populat ions likely continue. The service and retail trade would likely enhance fishing throughout the industries would be expected to remain in region for both recreational and commercial the top employment sectors of the county fishermen in the future. In addition,

191 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES permitting public access to minimally revenues from eliminating recreational dist urbed areas woul d enhance the qualit y fishing from the research natural area of the and value of nonconsumpt ive act ivit ies such park. However, other opport unit ies would be as ecot ourism, photography, recreat ional available for CUA operators — such as diving, fish watching, cultural activities, and overnight sailing excursions, fishing wilderness experience. The economic charters, wildlife viewing, and snorkel and benefits for nonconsumptive activities dive trips. would potentially offset and could exceed the current extractive value (Dixon and The cumulative impacts of establishing no- Sherman 1990). fishing zones would have moderate long- term beneficial impacts on marine populations, recreational and commercial Conclusion fishing, and the regional economy.

Implementing alternative D would be expected to have negligible effects on ALTERNATIVE E tourism and recreational activities in Monroe Count y and the South Florida Analysi s region. Eliminating recreational fishing and privat e boat ing from a port ion of the park Implementing alternative E would not be woul d not be expect ed to discourage visitors expected to affect tourism or recreation seeking these opportunities from coming to act ivit ies in Monroe Count y or the South t he Florida Keys. Much of the region’s Florida Region. revenue would be expect ed to cont inue to come from tourism and retirees. Rest rict ing privat e boat ing and eliminat ing recreat ional fishing from the park would not Establishing the multiagency contact facility be expected to result in visitors discontinu- could attract more visitors to Key West, ing these activities in the Florida Keys. result ing in minor long-t erm benefit s to the Implementing alternative E would have a count y’s economy. Minor short-t erm negligible impact on the county and regional economic benefits would occur as a result of tourism and economy. rehabilitation activities for the visitor contact facility, park staff housing in Key As described in alternative A, current trends West, and the expansion of the fort’s visitor in cont ribut ions t o t he count y and regional center. economy by tourist s and ret irees would likely continue. The service and retail trade Awarding a concessions contract to one industries would be expected to remain in ferryboat business and one seaplane the top employment sectors of the regional business would result in a long-term major economy. The economic benefit s of the Key economic benefit to the businesses receiving West facility attracting visitors to the area the contracts and a long-term major adverse would have the same long-term minor impact on current operators who were not impacts on the economy as described in awarded a contract. Establishing intrapark alternative A. transportation and eliminating private boating from the research natural area would The short-term minor beneficial economic provide additional revenue for the conces- impacts of rehabilitating buildings for the sioner and more employment opport unit ies Key West visitor contact facility and staff in the county. The added jobs would have a housing and expanding the fort’s visitor minor long-term beneficial impact on the cent er would be t he same as described in area’s economy. Charter fishing operators alternative A. could experience a minor reduction in

192 Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment

The impacts of this alternative on the com- Conclusion mercial operators and the National Park Service would be essentially the same as Current trends in tourism and recreat ion described in alt ernat ive D. However, current activities and contributions to the economy CUA permitt ees would lose opport unit ies woul d be ant icipat ed to cont inue. Elimi- and income because the concessioner would nating recreational fishing and restricting provide all commercial services in the park. privat e boat ing in the park would not be As a result, there could be more opportuni- expected to discourage visitors from coming ties for the concessioner to increase to the Florida Keys to engage in these activi- revenues, and the commercial services ties. Implementing alternative E would be would be more efficient for the National expected to have negligible effects on the Park Service to manage. count y and regional economies.

Establishing the multiagency contact facility Cumulative Impacts could attract more visitors to Key West, result ing in minor long-t erm benefit s to the Prohibit ing recreat ional fishing in the count y’s economy. Minor short-t erm eco- majority of the park, in the Florida Keys nomic benefits would occur as a result of National Marine Sanctuary ecological rehabilitation activities for the visitor con- reserve, and in Tort ugas Sout h and those tact facility, park staff housing in Key West, portions of Tortugas North that are in state and the expansion of the fort’s visitor center. wat ers or under the jurisdict ion of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Awarding a concessions contract to one would have adverse cumulative impacts on ferryboat business and one seaplane busi- recreational opportunities and the local and ness would result in a long-term major regional economy. Access to areas for economic benefit to the businesses receiving recreational fishing would decrease in the contracts and a long-term major adverse number and diversity. Charter boat com- impact on current operators who were not panies catering to recreation fishermen and awarded a contract. Establishing intrapark support businesses such as that supply t ransport at ion, rest rict ing private boat ing fishing equipment would experience a loss from the park, and permitting the conces- of revenue. sioner to provide all commercial services in t he park would provide addit ional revenue However, loss in revenue would be expected for the concessioner and more employment to be short term. Protecting marine life by opport unit ies in t he county. The added jobs establishing no-fishing areas would increase woul d have a minor long-t erm beneficial the number and size of species, and these impact on the area’s economy. Charter species would eventually migrate to areas fishing operators and ot her current holders outside the no-fishing zones. Dispersal of of commercial use authorizations could t hese larger and more abundant populat ions experience a minor reduction in revenues would likely enhance fishing throughout the from eliminating those recreational services region for both recreational and commercial from the park. fishermen in the future. In addition, permit- ting public access to minimally disturbed The cumulative impacts of establishing no- areas would enhance the quality and value fishing areas would have moderat e long- of nonconsumptive activities such as eco- term beneficial impacts on marine t ourism, photography, recreat ional diving, populations, recreational and commercial fish watching, cultural activities, and fishing, and the regional economy. wilderness experience. The economic bene- fits for nonconsumptive activities would potentially offset and could exceed the current extractive value (Dixon and Sherman 1990).

193 IMPACTS ON LAND USE

Along with other agencies, the National from the tax roles and a corresponding loss Park Service is pursuing a land exchange of revenue to the county. The visitor facility wit h the Navy to develop a mult iagency would remain compatible with adjacent land visitor facility in Key West. Use of the land uses in Key West including ot her would change from a military support recreational facilities. The land exchange function to recreational. Because the would not conflict with any known land use property is publicly owned and would plans or regulations. Therefore, the impacts remain in public ownership, the land of implementing alternative A, B, C, D, or E exchange would not result in removing lands on land use would be minor.

194 IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES

METHODOLOGY Type of Impact

Basis of Analysis Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether the impacts on park operations and facilities The impacts of the alternatives presented in would be beneficial or adverse. Beneficial this General Managem ent Plan Am endm ent impacts would improve park operations / Environmental Impact Statement and other and/or facilities. Adverse impacts would actions on park operations and facilities negatively affect park operations and/or were determined by examining facilities and could hinder the park’s ability to provide adequate services and facilities to • the affects of changes on staffing, visitors and staff. infrastructure, visitor facilities and services • the role of commercial operators in ALTERNATIVE A providing services Analysi s

Intensity Because alternative A would continue the current management strat egies, there would The intensity of the impact considers be no change in park operat ions. whether the impact would be negligible, Administration of the park would remain minor, moderate, or major. Negligible with Everglades National Park, and visitor impact s were considered undet ect able and protection, maintenance, and interpretation woul d have no discernible effect on park functions would remain at the fort. operations and facilities. Minor impacts were effects on park operations and facilities Establishing a multiagency visitor facility in t hat would be sli ght ly det ect able but not Key West would require t he addit ion of one expected to have an overall effect on the half-time visitor contact person to help staff ability of the park to provide services and the site. Other park operations would con- facilities. Moderate impacts would be tinue at current levels of staffing, manage- clearly detectable and could have an ment , and maint enance. Operat ions such as appreciable effect on park operations and monitoring visitor activities would continue facilities. Major impacts would have a t o be inadequat e due to understaffing. substantial influence on park operations and Monitoring would cont inue to occur only as facilities and include impacts that would t ime permitt ed and as required by specific reduce the park’s ability to provide adequate circumstances. A high level of patrols would services and facilities to visitors and staff. be needed, but st affing levels would remain too low to contact visitors and educate them adequately about the park’s resources and Duration the need to preserve them. Because the visitor protection staff size is limited, visitor The durat ion of the impact considers safety could cont inue to be compromised if whether the impact would occur for a short several visitors with emergencies need term and be temporary in nature, and associ- assistance at one time. Staff safety would ated with transitional types of activities, or if cont inue to be at risk when rangers must the impact would occur over a long term and investigate and board unfamiliar or have a permanent effect on the socioeco- suspicious vessels alone. nomic environment.

195 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Utility systems capacities would remain spills, resulting in operational cost savings, inadequate to accommodate additional as well as reducing or eliminating air and personnel at one time at Garden Key. The noise pollution. Providing adequate and wastewater system for the restrooms at the accessible administrative office and storage dock would cont inue to be overstressed space would improve staff productivity and during peak visitation periods and require operational efficiency. frequent maint enance. T he dock would continue to be too small to accommodate all Pre-visit informat ion would ease the burden the people wanting to use the park’s of limited park staff in educating visitors. facilities and would require staff to perform harbor master duties. The current NPS staff Implementing alternative A would result in is severely limited in their ability to monitor long-term major beneficial impacts for park commercial activities in the park, which staff by improving housing units at the fort woul d cont inue. This would cause no new and in Key West, by improving the park’s impacts on commercial operators but would communications systems, providing perpetuate a less-than-desirable management adequate office and storage space, using situation for park managers. Implementing renewable energy sources, and dispensing alternative A would have long-term pre-visit information to visitors. moderate adverse impacts on the mainten- ance of facilities and the ability of park staff to perform all necessary duties, including Cumulative Impacts monitoring visitor and commercial act iv it ies. No known cumulative impacts on park operations and facilities would be expected. Establishing permanent housing for park staff in Key West would improve overall park operations and living conditions for Conclusion park staff who rotate to Garden Key for t ours of duty in temporary housing. T he Implementing alternative A would have installation of energy-efficient inserts into long-term moderate adverse impacts on park the casemates would improve comfort, operations and facilities. health, and safety for onsite employees and research staff by eliminating water leaks and Cont inuing t he current t rend in park material spalling from the fort. The operations staffing would likely result in an improvements to the visitor center would increasing inability to meet demand for park assist in protect ing the exhibit s and ot her operations, such as monitoring visitor and interpretive media. These improvements commercial services activities. Visitor woul d result in reduced maint enance facilities such as the dock and campground responsibilities for park staff, improve would not be able to accommodate all operational efficiency, and have long-term visitors during peak periods. moderate beneficial impacts on facilities and park operations. Actions in alternative A that would have long-term major beneficial impacts on park An improved communication system would operations and facilities include installing enhance visitor and staff safety, particularly energy-efficient inserts in the fort’s case- in emergency sit uat ions, and aid in mates, improving the utilities and communi- dispersing information to visitors — cat ions systems, providing adequat e office including rules, conditions, and availability and storage space, using renewable energy of services in the park. The use of renewable sources, and dispensing pre-visit informa- energy sources would reduce fuel tion to visitors. These actions would relieve consumption and reduce or eliminate fuel the workload of staff members and result in

196 Impacts on Park Operations and Facilities improved operational efficiency. Visitor park, which would have no new impact on facilities would not accommodate all visitors operators who are complying with all the during peak periods. conditions in their CUA permits but could have impacts on those that are not.

ALTERNATIVE B Charging visitors an ent rance fee would be anticipated to have long-term minor bene- Analysi s ficial impact on park revenues. The park’s revenue would increase, and the additional Park operations regarding visitor use funds could be use d t o improve facilit ies, management would be improved through hire additional staff, enhance interpretation enhanced education at Key West and in the and resource protection programs, improve park. Establishing the maximum numbers of visitor safety, and conduct research. visitors in selected areas while increasing park staff in interpretive, visitor protection, and resource management funct ions, along Cumulative Impacts with added maintenance personnel, would distribute workloads more evenly than No known cumulative impacts on park current ly possible. This dist ribut ion would operations and facilities would be expected. result in more efficient operations. Addi- tional staff members would allow for a higher level of monitoring visitor activities Conclusion and educating visitors about the resources and increased safety for staff and visitors. Implementing alternative B would have Implementing alternative B would have long-term moderate beneficial impacts on long-term moderate beneficial impacts on park operations as a result of establishing park staff and park operations. visitor capacities and an increase in staff that woul d improve workload dist ribut ion and Improving the communicat ion syst em, using allow for greater visitor education than renewable energy sources, having adequate current ly possible. office and storage space, and improving housing conditions in both Key West and Actions that would have long-term major the park would have the same long-term beneficial impacts on park operations and benefits as alternative A. facilities include installing energy-efficient inserts in the fort’s casemates, providing Using mooring buoys or other devices adequate office and storage space, woul d require a dedicat ed and cyclic budget improving the communications system, (not currently available to the park) for using renewable energy sources, and installation and maintenance. Installations dispensing pre-visit information to visitors. woul d be labor int ensive and require These actions would relieve the workload of specialized underwater tools, knowledgeable staff members and result in improved personnel, and up-to-date diving equipment. operational efficiency. The mooring system would need frequent inspect ions for damage, cleaning sea Using mooring buoys or other devices growt h, and replacing mooring lines. Labor woul d be labor int ensive and require special and funding requirement s would have long- equipment and knowledgeable personnel term minor adverse impacts on park staff and a dedicat ed and cyclic budget . Labor and operat ions. and funding requirement s would have long- term minor adverse impacts on park staff More NPS st aff time would be dedicat ed t o and operations for monitoring and monitoring commercial activities in the maintenance of a mooring system.

197 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

ALTERNATIVE C Using mooring buoys or other devices in the research natural area would require a Analysi s dedicat ed and cyclic budget (not current ly available to the park) for installation and Park operations regarding visitor use man- maint enance. Installat ions would be labor agement would be improved through intensive and require specialized underwater enhanced education of visitors at Key West tools, knowledgeable personnel, and up-to- and in the park. Establishing maximum dat e diving equipment . The mooring syst em numbers of visitors in selected areas while woul d need frequent inspect ions for damage, increasing park staff in interpretive, visitor cleaning sea growth, and replacing mooring protection, resource management functions lines. Labor and funding requirement s and maint enance, would dist ribut e work- would have long-term moderate to high loads more evenly among staff members adverse impact s on park st aff and operat ions t han current ly possible. T his dist ribut ion for the management and maintenance of the would result in more efficient operations. mooring system. More pat rols than current ly needed would be required to monitor visitor activities in and Authorizing the majority of commercial use along research natural area boundaries. in the park through concession contracts However, additional staff members would would increase the overall amount of NPS allow for this higher level of monitoring. In st aff t ime required t o manage t he commer- addit ion, there would be more time available cial services program. This would constitute to educate visitors, such as private boaters, a moderate to high adverse impact on park about the resources and appropriate visitor st aff. Cont ract s cont ain operat ional, behaviors. Added employees would increase maintenance, and environmental plans that safety for staff members when conducting the concessioner is required to comply with. patrols and for visitors in emergency Concessioners are also required to pay a situations. franchise fee to the government based on their gross revenues, 80% of which stay in Improving the communicat ion syst em, using the park to support the commercial services renewable energy sources, having adequate programs and resource prot ect ion project s. office and storage space, and improving This would be a much-needed funding housing conditions in both Key West and source as opposed to only recovering costs the park would have the same long-term from commercial use authorizations. benefits as alternative A. However, training the concessions staff in interpret at ion would require more oversight Self-cont ained ferry operat ion would ease than is currently available. t he burden on the park’s limit ed, overs- tressed facilities and systems, including Charging visitors an ent rance fee would be wastewater and freshwater systems and trash anticipated to have long-term minor bene- removal. The ferry should be accessible to ficial impact on park revenues. The park’s visitors during the entire visit. An additional revenue would increase, and the additional structure, such as a dock, would ease funds could be use d t o improve facilit ies, overcrowding and provide for more efficient hire additional staff, enhance interpretation operations, particularly when private boaters and resource protection programs, improve come to Garden Key for permits. visitor safety, and conduct research.

Implementing alternative C would have long-term moderate to high adverse impacts Cumulative on the need for park staff and park operations. No known cumulative impacts on park operations and facilities would be expected.

198 Impacts on Park Operations and Facilities

Conclusion training. This would constitute a long-term moderate to high adverse impact on staff Implementing alternative C would have requirement s. long-term major beneficial impacts on park operations as a result of establishing visitor capacities. An increase in staff would ALTERNATIVE D improve workload distribution and allow for a higher level of monitoring and educating Analysi s visitors than current ly possible. The efficiency of operations would improve as a Park operations regarding visitor use result of self-contained ferry operation management would be improved through easing the burden on the park’s limit ed enhanced education of visitors at Key West facilities. An additional structure, such as a and in the park. Establishing maximum dock, would ease crowding and enhance numbers of visitors while increasing park safety for boaters. staff in interpretive, visitor protection, and resource management funct ions, along wit h The structured nature of visitor use in the added maintenance personnel would research natural area would require more distribute workloads more evenly among patrols than currently needed. staff members than currently possible. This dist ribut ion would result in more efficient Actions that would have long-term major operat ions. Addit ional staff members would beneficial impacts on park operations and allow for a higher level of monitoring visitor facilities include installing energy-efficient activities in the natural/ cultural zone. In inserts in the fort’s casemates, providing addit ion, there would be more time available adequate office and storage space, using to educate visitors, such as private boaters, renewable energy sources, improving the about the resources and appropriate visitor communications system, and dispensing pre- behaviors. Added employees would increase visit information to visitors. These actions safety for staff members when conducting would relieve the workload of staff members patrols and for visitors in emergency and result in improved operat ional situations. efficiency. Improving the communicat ion syst em, using Using mooring buoys or other devices renewable energy sources, having adequate woul d be labor int ensive and require special office and storage space, and improving equipment and knowledgeable personnel housing conditions in both Key West and and a dedicat ed and cyclic budget . Labor the park would have the same long-term and funding requirement s would have long- benefits as alternative A. term moderate adverse impacts on park staff and operat ions for the management and A higher level of patrols would be needed maintenance of a mooring system. because of the structured and educational nature of commercial tours and the educa- Awarding concessions contracts would tion inherent in the permit process for increase the overall amount of NPS staff privat e boat ers. time needed to manage and monitor the commercial services program. Conces- Self-cont ained ferry operat ion would ease sioners would provide a funding source for t he burden on the park’s limit ed, t he park through payment of a required overstressed facilities and systems, franchise fee. including wastewater and freshwater systems and trash removal. The self- All aspect s of this alt ernat ive would require contained ferry should be accessible to more staff for patrols, monitoring, and visitors during the entire visit. An additional

199 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES structure, such as a dock would permit this Cumulative Impacts extended stay, ease overcrowding and provide for more efficient operations, No known cumulative impacts on park part icularly when privat e boat ers come t o operations and facilities would be expected. Garden Key for permits. Implementing alternative D would have long-term moderate to high adverse impacts on park Conclusion staff and park operations. Implementing alternative D would have Using mooring buoys or other devices in the long-term moderate beneficial impacts on research natural area would require a park operations as a result of establishing dedicat ed and cyclic budget (not current ly visitor capacities and an increase in staff that available to the park) for installation and woul d improve workload dist ribut ion and maint enance. Installat ions would be labor allow for a higher level of monitoring and intensive and require specialized underwater educating visitors than currently possible. tools, knowledgeable personnel, and up-to- The efficiency of operations would improve dat e diving equipment . The mooring syst em as a result of self-contained ferry operation woul d need frequent inspect ions for damage, easing the burden of the park’s limit ed cleaning sea growth, and replacing mooring facilities. An additional structure, such as a lines. Labor and funding requirement s dock, would ease crowding and enhance would have long-term moderate to high safety for boaters. adverse impact s on park st aff and operat ions for the management and maintenance of the The structured nature of visitor use in the mooring system. research natural area would require more patrols than currently needed. Authorizing the majority of commercial use in the park through concession contracts Actions that would have long-term major would increase the overall amount of NPS beneficial impacts on park operations and st aff t ime required t o manage t he commer- facilities include installing energy-efficient cial services program. Contracts contain inserts in the fort’s casemates, providing operational, maintenance, and environ- adequate office and storage space, mental plans that the concessioner is improving the communications system, required t o comply wit h. Concessioners are using renewable energy sources, and also required to pay a franchise fee to the dispensing pre-visit information to visitors. government based on their gross revenues, These actions would relieve the workload of 80% of which stay in the park to support the staff members and result in improved commercial services programs and resource operational efficiency. protection projects. This would be a much- needed funding source as opposed to only Using mooring buoys or other devices recovering costs from commercial use woul d be labor int ensive and require special authorizations. equipment and knowledgeable personnel and a dedicat ed and cyclic budget . Labor Charging visitors an ent rance fee would be and funding requirement s would have long- anticipated to have long-term minor bene- t erm moderat e to high adverse impact s on ficial impact on park revenues. The park’s park staff and operations for the manage- revenue would increase, and the additional ment and maint enance of a mooring system. funds could be use d t o improve facilit ies, hire additional staff, enhance interpretation Awarding concessions contracts would and resource protection programs, improve increase the overall amount of NPS staff visitor safety, and conduct research. time needed to manage and monitor the commercial services program.

200 Impacts on Park Operations and Facilities

Concessioners would provide a funding contained ferry should be accessible to source for the park through payment of a visitors during the entire visit. An additional required franchise fee. structure, such as a dock, would permit this extended stay, ease overcrowding, lessen the All aspect s of this alt ernat ive would require potential for boats to collide, and provide for more staff for patrols, monitoring, and more efficient operations. Implementing training. This would constitute a long-term alternative E would have long-term moderate to high adverse impact on staff moderat e beneficial impact s on park staff requirement s. and park operations.

Using mooring buoys or other devices in the ALTERNATIVE E park would require a dedicat ed and cyclic budget (not current ly available t o t he park) Analysi s for installation and maintenance. Installa- t ions would be labor int ensive and require Park operations regarding visitor use specialized underwater tools, knowledgeable management would be improved through personnel, and up-to-date diving equipment. enhanced education of visitors at Key West The mooring system would need frequent and in the park. Establishing maximum inspect ions for damage, cleaning sea numbers of visitors in selected areas while growt h, and replacing mooring lines. Labor increasing park staff over current levels in and funding requirement s would have long- interpretive, visitor protection, and resource term major adverse impacts on park staff management funct ions, along wit h added and operat ions for the management and maintenance personnel, would distribute maintenance of a mooring system. workloads more evenly among staff members than currently possible. This Authorizing all commercial use in the park dist ribut ion would result in more efficient t hrough concession cont ract s would furt her operations. increase the overall amount of NPS staff time required to manage the commercial Improving the communicat ion syst em, using services program. Cont ract s cont ain renewable energy sources, having adequate operational, maintenance, and environ- office and storage space, and improving mental plans that the concessioner is housing conditions in both Key West and required t o comply wit h. Concessioners are the park would have the same long-term also required to pay a franchise fee to the benefits as alternative A. government based on their gross revenues, 80% of which stay in the park to support the A higher level of patrols to monitor visitor commercial services programs and resource activities would be needed because of the protection projects. This would be a much- structured and educational nature of needed funding source as opposed to only commercial tours, but added st aff would recovering costs from commercial use give park employees time to educate visitors authorizations. about the resources and would increase safety for staff members when conducting Charging visitors an ent rance fee would be patrols and for visitors in emergency anticipated to have long-term minor bene- situations. ficial impact on park revenues. The park’s revenue would increase, and the additional Self-cont ained ferry operat ion would ease funds could be use d t o improve facilit ies, t he burden on the park’s limit ed, hire additional staff, enhance interpretation overstressed facilities and systems, and resource protection programs, improve including wastewater and freshwater visitor safety, and conduct research. systems and trash removal. The self-

201 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts facilities include installing energy-efficient inserts in the fort’s casemates, providing No known cumulative impacts on park adequate office and storage space, improv- operations and facilities would be expected. ing the communications system, using renewable energy sources, and dispensing pre-visit information to visitors. These Conclusion actions would relieve the workload of staff members and result in improved operational Implementing alternative E would have efficiency. long-term moderate to high adverse impacts on park operations as a result of establishing Using mooring buoys or other devices visitor capacities. An increase in staff would woul d be labor int ensive and require special improve workload distribution and allow for equipment and knowledgeable personnel a higher level of monitoring and educating and a dedicat ed and cyclic budget . Labor visitors than current ly possible. The and funding requirement s would have long- efficiency of operations would improve as a term major adverse impacts on park staff result of self-contained ferry operation and operations. Overall operational staffing easing the burden on the park’s limit ed costs would increase significantly for the facilities. An additional structure, such as a management and maintenance of a mooring dock, would ease crowding and enhance system. safety for boaters. Awarding concession contracts would The structured nature of visitor use in the further increase the overall amount of NPS park would require more patrols than staff time needed to manage and monitor the currently needed. commercial services program. Conces- sioners would provide a funding source for Actions that would have long-term major t he park through payment of a required beneficial impacts on park operations and franchise fee.

202 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts are those resources and visitors, and enhancing visit or impact s that cannot be fully mit igat ed or education would increase protection of avoided. resources over current conditions, but fishing, boat ing, diving, and the use of anchors would cont inue the current trend of ALTERNATIVE A harmful effects on marine life and habitat, terrestrial wildlife, and water quality. There would be unavoidable moderat e to Despit e implement at ion of a management major adverse impacts on natural and strategy to provide more comprehensive cultural resources under alternative A as a prot ect ion of submerged cult ural resources, result of increasing visit or use pressures t here would likely cont inue to be inst ances that, with limited resources, tax the park where shipwreck artifacts and associated staff’s ability to effectively carry out archeological resources are removed or resource prot ect ion measures. Fishing, dist urbed by visit ors exploring these sit es. boat ing, diving, and the use of anchors These impact s would be avoidable only if woul d cont inue the current trend of harmful human use were not allowed in the park. effects on marine life and habitat, terrestrial Mit igat ion measures would be t aken where wildlife and water quality. Visitors diving to possible to reduce these impacts. explore shipwreck sites might remove artifacts or disturb associated archeological Concentrat ing visit or use at mooring buoy resources, compromising the information locat ions would have an unavoidable impact value of the sit e. T hese impact s would be If impacts become unacceptable, buoys avoidable only if human use were not might be relocat ed or other management allowed in the park. Mit igat ion measures act ion might be t aken. woul d be t aken where possible to reduce these impacts. In addition to the above unavoidable impacts, staff increases would require An increase in visit at ion would have the additional operational funding. potential to reduce access to some activities and areas such as the campground and dock during peak visitation periods. Crowding ALTERNATIVE C and noise would increase and change the character of the visitor experience, resulting Aquat ic habitat s out side the boundaries of in minor to moderate adverse impacts on the the research natural area zone might face visitor experience. moderate to major long-term unavoidable adverse impacts. This would be due to a lack of restrict ions on use by boat ers, fishermen, ALTERNATIVE B divers, snorkelers, and swimmers.

There would be unavoidable adverse The implementation of a management impacts on natural and cultural resources strategy to provide comprehensive pro- under alt ernat ive B. Even though man- t ect ion of submerged cult ural resources agement activities would limit some visitor along wit h ot her resource protect ion numbers and activities at specific sites, measures (e.g., zoning) would further reduce moderate to major adverse impacts would but not entirely eliminate the risk that occur due to cont inued visit or use and taxing shipwreck artifacts and associated archeo- the park staff’s workload. Limiting visitor logical resources might be removed or numbers at specific sites, monitoring dist urbed by visit ors exploring these sit es.

203 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

Eliminating recreational fishing from the visitors seeking these activities in the park research natural area zone would decrease and result in minor long-term adverse the diversity of visitor activities and result in impacts on their visitor experience. long-term minor adverse impacts on fishermen. Operators who currently provide transporta- t ion to the park and were not awarded con- Operators who currently provide transporta- cessions contracts would experience a major t ion to the park and are not awarded con- adverse economic impact. Commercial cessions contracts would experience a major services providers who hold commercial use adverse economic impact. Commercial authorizations could experience minor services providers who hold commercial use adverse impacts as a result of competing authorizations could experience minor with concessioners who would be permitted adverse impacts as a result of competing to offer similar services. with concessioners who would be permitted to offer similar services. Visitors on tours to areas beyond Garden Key would have a structured experience and Visitors on tours to areas beyond Garden less need for self-reliance. Previous visitors Key would have a structured experience and by privat e boat s might experience a loss of less need for self-reliance. Previous visitors freedom to travel and a loss of solitude. by privat e boat s might experience a loss of freedom to travel and a loss of solitude. Concentrat ing visit or use at mooring buoy locat ions would have an unavoidable impact Concentrat ing visit or use at mooring buoy If impacts become unacceptable, buoys locat ions would have an unavoidable impact might be relocat ed or other management If impacts become unacceptable, buoys act ion might be t aken. might be relocat ed or other management act ion might be t aken. ALTERNATIVE E

ALTERNATIVE D Implementing a management strategy to provide comprehensive prot ect ion of sub- Aquat ic habitat s out side the boundaries of merged cultural resources, along with the the research natural area zone might face designation of an expanded research natural moderate to major long-term unavoidable area zone, would subst ant ially reduce but adverse impact s due to use by boat ers, not entirely eliminate the risk that shipwreck fishermen, divers, snorkelers, and artifacts and associated archeological swimmers. resources might be removed or dist urbed by visitors exploring these sites. The implementation of a management strat- egy to provide comprehensive protection of Eliminat ing recreat ional fishing and privat e submerged cult ural resources along with boating from the research natural area zone other resource protection measures (e.g., (the major portion of the park) would zoning) would furt her reduce but not decrease the diversity of activities for entirely eliminate the risk that shipwreck visitors seeking these activities and result in artifacts and associated archeological moderate long-term adverse impacts on their resources might be removed or dist urbed by visitor experience. visitors exploring these sites. Operators who currently provide transporta- Eliminat ing recreat ional fishing and privat e t ion to the park and were not awarded con- boating from the research natural area zone cessions contracts would experience a major would decrease the diversity of activities for adverse economic impact. Commercial

204 Unavoidable Adverse Effects services providers who hold commercial use by privat e boat s might experience a loss of authorizations could experience minor freedom to travel and a loss of solitude. adverse impacts as a result of competing with concessioners who would be permitted Concentrat ing visit or use at mooring buoy to offer similar services. locat ions would have an unavoidable impact If impacts become unacceptable, buoys Visitors on tours to areas beyond Garden might be relocat ed or other management Key would have a structured experience and act ion might be t aken. less need for self-reliance. Previous visitors

205 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

This section discusses the effects of the diving over coral and shipwrecks would short-term use of resources resulting from continue to have deleterious effects on coral, implementing this alternative on the long- sea grass beds, sand bot toms, hardbott om term productivity of resources. habitats, water quality, and cultural resources.

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE C The cont inuat ion of consumpt ive uses and visitor activities would jeopardize the long- The relationship of the proposed action to term productivity of the environment. Noise the goals of the National Environmental and human activities associated with Policy Act is expressed in terms of the ongoing visitor and administrative use of the NEPA objective to maintain and enhance the park would prevent marine populations from long-term productivity of the environment. reaching their full potential in size and The National Park Service and Dry Tortugas population density. Noise, artificial lighting, National Park are committed to this goal; and human activities such as fishing and consequently, the proposed action includes boat ing would cont inue to adversely affect numerous elements that would enhance the wildlife populations including birds, sea long-term productivity of the environment. turtles, and sea mammals. Permitting activities such as boating, anchoring, and Improving the management of nat ural and diving over coral and shipwrecks would cultural resources, along with enhancing continue to have deleterious effects on coral, research within the park, would contribute to sea grass beds, sand bot toms, hardbott om the long-term protection and preservation of habitats, water quality, and cultural all resources considered in the proposed resources. action. Proposals to work cooperatively with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and other agencies’ initiatives for resource ALTERNATIVE B and public use management would furt her enhance resource protection and the Limiting visitor numbers and activities at preservation of resources. specific sites and monitoring resources woul d provide greater protect ion of Establishing a research natural area zone resources than alternative A. However, the within the park would reduce the short- and cont inuat ion of consumpt ive uses and visitor long-term adverse impacts on coral reefs, activities would jeopardize the long-term sea grass beds, sand bot toms, and hardbot - productivity of the environment. Noise and tom habitats within the zone. Restrictions on human activities associated with ongoing private boat use in the research natural area visitor and administrative use of the park woul d reduce t he threat of major damage to would prevent marine populations from underwater (benthic) habitats from reaching their full potential in size and groundings and propellers. Eliminating population density. Noise, artificial lighting, anchoring and fishing in this zone would and human activities such as fishing and remove the threat of damage to underwat er boat ing also would cont inue to adversely habitats. Limiting scuba diving, snorkeling, affect wildlife populations including birds, and swimming to deeper localized areas near sea turtles, and sea mammals. Permitting mooring buoys would reduce t he areal activities such as boating, anchoring, and ext ent of damage on coral reefs. The zone

206 Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity would protect 41% of the coral reef habitats ALTERNATIVE D in the park, 100% of the hardbottom habit at s, 26% of the sea grass beds, and 41% Establishing a research natural area zone in of the sand bottom areas. the park would reduce the short- and long- term adverse impacts on coral reefs, sea Establishing the research natural area would grass beds, sand bott oms, and hardbott om provide major short-term and long-term habitats within this zone. Restrictions on benefit s to the abundance and diversit y of private boat use in the research natural area exploited and unexploit ed and prot ect ed/ woul d reduce t he threat of major damage to threatened fish and invertebrate populations underwat er habit at s from groundings and by protecting coral reef habitats and propellers. Eliminating anchoring and eliminat ing fishing. The zone would provide fishing in the zone would remove the threat increased protection for 88% of reef fish of damage to underwat er habit at s. Limit ing species found in the park and 97% of the scuba diving, snorkeling, and swimming to species in the snapper-grouper-grunt deeper localized areas near mooring buoys complex, resulting in an increase in woul d reduce t he areal ext ent of damage on spawning population, egg production, and coral reefs. The zone would protect 35% of larger individual size. the coral reef habitats in the park, 38% of t he sea grass beds, 20% of the sand bott om Monitored and/or restricted access to areas, and none of the hardbottom areas. portions of the terrestrial habitat and the use of guided t ours and marked pat hways would Establishing the research natural area would provide increased protection to land-based provide major short-term and long-term wildlife resources compared to alternative benefit s for the abundance and diversity of A. Eliminat ing fishing and restrict ing boat exploited and unexploit ed and prot ect ed/ use in the research natural area would threatened fish and invertebrate populations reduce short-term and long-term adverse by protecting coral reef habitats and impact s on bird and turt le nests and eggs. eliminat ing fishing. The zone would provide Restricted boat use would decrease the increased protection for 80% of reef fish short-term risks to water quality from fuel species found in the park and 83% of the and oil spills due to groundings and from species in the snapper-grouper-grunt com- pollution (trash, waste disposal, etc.). plex, resulting in an increase in spawning population, egg production, and larger If a permanent , shore-based design were individual size. select ed for dock construct ion, short-t erm impacts would include increased Monitored and/or restricted access to por- sedimentation and turbidity, loss of habitat, t ions of the terrestrial habit at and the use of animal mortality, air pollution, and dust gui ded t ours would provide increased pro- dispersal. Potential long-term impacts tection to land-based wildlife resources include loss of habit at , shading of habit at , compared to alternative A. Eliminating fish- unnatural current patterns, artificial habitat ing and restrict ing boat use in the research creat ion, the buildup of sediment , and natural area would reduce short-term and interference with turtle nesting. Most of long-t erm adverse impact s on bird and turt le these impacts would be minimized or nest s and eggs. Rest rict ed boat use would eliminat ed by appropriat e mit igat ion decrease the short-term risks to water quality measures. from fuel and oil spills due to groundings and from pollution (t rash, wast e disposal, etc.).

Select ing a permanent, shore-based design for dock expansion would result in short-

207 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES term impacts, including increased threatened fish and invertebrate populations sedimentation and turbidity, loss of habitat, by protecting coral reef habitats and animal mortality, air pollution, and dust eliminat ing fishing. The zone would provide dispersal. Potential long-term impacts increased protection for 100% of reef fish include loss of habit at , shading of habit at , species found in the park and result in an unnatural current patterns, artificial habitat increase in spawning population, egg creat ion, the buildup of sediment , and product ion, and larger individual size. interference with turtle nesting. Most of these impacts would be minimized or Monitored and/or restricted access to eliminat ed by appropriat e mit igat ion portions of the terrestrial habitat and the use measures. of guided t ours and marked pat hways would provide increased protection to land-based wildlife resources compared to alternative ALTERNATIVE E A. Eliminat ing fishing and restrict ing boat use in the research natural area zone would Establishing a research natural area zone for reduce short-term and long-term adverse most of the park would nearly eliminate the impact s on bird and turt le nests and eggs. short- and long-term adverse impacts on Restricted boat use would decrease the coral reefs, sea grass beds, sand bottoms, short-term risks to water quality from fuel and hardbott om habit at s. Restrict ions on and oil spills due to groundings and from private boat use in the research natural area pollution (trash, waste disposal, etc.). woul d reduce t he threat of major damage to underwat er habit at s from groundings and Select ing a permanent, shore-based design propellers. Eliminating anchoring and for dock expansion would result in short- fishing in the zone would remove the threat term impacts including increased of damage to underwat er habit at s. Limit ing sedimentation and turbidity, loss of habitat, scuba diving, snorkeling, and swimming to animal mortality, air pollution, and dust deeper localized areas near mooring buoys dispersal. Potential long-term impacts woul d reduce t he areal ext ent of damage to include loss of habit at , shading of habit at , coral reefs. The zone would protect nearly unnatural current patterns, artificial habitat 100% of all underwater habitat. creat ion, the buildup of sediment , and interference with turtle nesting. Most of Establishing the research natural area would these impacts would be minimized or provide major short-term and long-term eliminat ed by appropriat e mit igat ion benefit s to the abundance and diversit y of measures. exploited and unexploit ed and prot ect ed/

208 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

An irreversible commitment of resources is Si gnificant sit es cont ain unique dat a that one that cannot be changed once it occurs cannot oft en be replicated or recovered once except perhaps in the extreme long term; an lost or disturbed. irretrievable commitment means the resource is lost for a period of time and Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources likely cannot be recovered or reused. woul d be use d for construct ion project s and park operations, including energy and materials. These resources would be ALTERNATIVE A basically irretrievable once they were committed. Ongoing activities that result in the loss of nonresilient coral reefs, sea grass beds, sand bott oms, and hardbott om habit at s would be ALTERNATIVE C an irreversible commitment of resources. Over time, an accumulation of adverse Alt hough the risks of resource impact s impact s on these habit at s could result in an woul d be furt her reduced by the manage- irreversible commitment of resources. ment actions proposed under this alternative, Removing artifacts from a shipwreck or instances of irreversible or irretrievable disturbing associated archeological commitments of natural or cultural resources resources would compromise the infor- might occur. For example, removing arti- mation potential of the site and result in an fact s from a shipwreck or dist urbing signifi- irreversible commitment of resources. cant associated archeological resources Si gnificant sit es cont ain unique dat a that would compromise the information potential cannot oft en be replicated or recovered once of the site and result in an irreversible lost or disturbed. commitment of resources. Significant sites cont ain unique dat a that cannot oft en be Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources replicat ed or recovered once lost or woul d be use d for construct ion project s and dist urbed. park operations, including energy and materials. These resources would be Proposed management actions would con- basically irretrievable once they were t ribut e to resource prot ect ion and preserva- committed. t ion and would be expected to minimize the occurrence of irreversible or irretrievable impacts. ALTERNATIVE B Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources Ongoing activities that result in the loss of woul d be use d for construct ion project s and nonresilient coral reefs, sea grass beds, sand park operations, including energy and bott oms, and hardbott om habit at s would be materials. These resources would be an irreversible commitment of resources. basically irretrievable once they were Over time, an accumulation of adverse committed. impact s on these habit at s could result in an irreversible commitment of resources. Removing artifacts from a shipwreck or ALTERNATIVE D disturbing associated archeological resources would compromise the informa- Alt hough the risks of resource impact s tion potential of the site and result in an woul d be furt her reduced by the manage- irreversible commitment of resources. ment actions proposed under this alternative,

209 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES instances of irreversible or irretrievable management actions proposed under this commitments of natural or cultural resources alternative, instances of irreversible or might occur. For example, removing arti- irret rievable commit ment s of nat ural or fact s from a shipwreck or dist urbing signifi- cultural resources might occur. For example, cant associated archeological resources removing artifacts from a shipwreck or would compromise the information potential disturbing significant associated archeo- of the site and result in an irreversible logical resources would compromise the commitment of resources. Significant sites information potential of the site and result in cont ain unique dat a that cannot oft en be an irreversible commitment of resources. replicat ed or recovered once lost or Si gnificant sit es cont ain unique dat a that dist urbed. cannot oft en be replicated or recovered once lost or disturbed. Proposed management actions would cont ribut e t o resource prot ect ion and Proposed management actions would preservat ion and would be expect ed to cont ribut e t o resource prot ect ion and minimize the occurrence of irreversible or preservat ion and would be expect ed to irret rievable impact s. Limit ed amount s of minimize the occurrence of irreversible or nonrenewable resources would be used for irretrievable impacts. construction projects and park operations, including energy and materials. These Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources resources would be basically irretrievable woul d be use d for construct ion project s and once they were committed. park operations, including energy and materials. These resources would be basically irretrievable once they were ALTERNATIVE E committed.

Alt hough the risks of resource impact s woul d be subst ant ially reduced by t he

210 IMPACTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

ALTERNATIVE A vehicles, construction materials, and energy used in manufact uring materials. Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources woul d be use d for construct ion project s An increase in energy expenditure would including rehabilitating buildings for the occur with proposed additional patrols to Key West multiagency visitor facility and monitor visitor use and to augment resource park housing. T his expendit ure of energy monitoring. Added patrols would increase woul d be short term and negligible and boat miles traveled and fuel consumption. include fuel for construction vehicles, The number of boat trips for patrols is construct ion mat erials, and energy used in uncert ain at this time, but fuel consumpt ion manufact uring mat erials. woul d be expect ed t o be minor relat ive t o overall fuel consumption in the park. From a regional context, the increase in fuel ALTERNATIVE B consumpt ion would be negligible.

Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources woul d be use d for construct ion project s ALTERNATIVE D including rehabilitating buildings for the Key West multiagency visitor facility and Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources park housing. T his expendit ure of energy woul d be use d for construct ion project s woul d be short term and negligible and including rehabilitation of buildings for the include fuel for construction vehicles, Key West multiagency visitor facility and construct ion mat erials, and energy used in park housing and the dock. This expendit ure manufact uring mat erials. of energy would be short term and negligible and include fuel for construct ion An increase in energy expenditure would vehicles, construction materials, and energy occur with proposed additional patrols to used in manufact uring materials. monitor visitor use and to augment resource monitoring. Added patrols would increase An increase in energy expenditure would boat miles traveled and fuel consumption. occur with proposed additional patrols to The number of boat trips for patrols is monitor visitor use and to augment resource uncert ain at this time, but fuel consumpt ion monitoring. Added patrols would increase woul d be expect ed t o be minor relat ive t o boat miles traveled and fuel consumption. overall fuel consumption in the park. From a The number of boat trips for patrols is regional context, the increase in fuel uncert ain at this time, but fuel consumpt ion consumpt ion would be negligible. woul d be expect ed t o be minor relat ive t o overall fuel consumption in the park. From a regional context, the increase in fuel ALTERNATIVE C consumpt ion would be negligible.

Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources Eliminating private boating from the woul d be use d for construct ion project s research natural area zone could decrease including rehabilitating buildings for the fuel consumpt ion by privat e boat ers who Key West multiagency visitor facility and would leave their boats near the fort and park housing and the dock. This expendit ure take a commercial tour. In a regional of energy would be short term and negli- context, the decrease in fuel consumption gible and include fuel for construct ion woul d be negligible.

211 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

ALTERNATIVE E boat miles traveled and fuel consumption. The number of boat trips for patrols is Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources uncert ain at this time, but fuel consumpt ion woul d be use d for construct ion project s woul d be expect ed t o be minor relat ive t o including rehabilitating buildings for the overall fuel consumption in the park. From a Key West multiagency visitor facility and regional context, the increase in fuel park housing and the dock. This expendit ure consumpt ion would be negligible. of energy would be short term and negligible and include fuel for construct ion Eliminating private boating from the vehicles, construction materials, and energy research natural area zone could decrease used in manufact uring materials. fuel consumpt ion by privat e boat ers who would leave their boats near the fort and An increase in energy expenditure would take a commercial tour. In a regional occur with proposed additional patrols to context, the decrease in fuel consumption monitor visitor use and to augment resource woul d be negligible. monitoring. Added patrols would increase

212 ENV IRO NMEN TAL J US TIC E P O LIC Y

Under a policy established by the secretary effect s on any minority or low-income of the Department of the Interior, to comply population or community. wit h Execut ive Order 12898 (“ Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in • The impacts on the natural and physical Minority Populations and Low-Income environment that would result from Populations”), departmental agencies should implementing alternative C would not ident ify and evaluat e, during the scoping have significant adverse effects on any and/or planning processes, any anticipated minority or low-income population or effects, direct or indirect, from the proposed community. project or act ion on minority and low- income populat ions and communit ies, • The proposed action (alternative C) including t he equit y of the distribut ion of the would not result in any identified benefits and risks. If any significant impacts adverse effects that would be specific to on minorit y and low-income populat ions any minorit y or low-income communit y. and communit ies were ident ified during the scoping and/or planning processes, the • The National Park Service has had an environmental document should clearly active public participation program and evaluate and state the environmental has equally considered all public input consequences of the proposed project or from persons regardless of age, race, action on minority and low-income income status, or other socioeconomic populations and communities. or demographic factors.

It was determined that none of the actions of • No minority groups in Monroe County the alternatives considered in this Final or the south Florida region would be General Management Plan Amendment/ disproportionately affected. Environmental Impact Statement wo uld result in significant direct or indirect adverse • Effect s on the count y and regional effect s on any minority or low-income socioeconomic environment due to population or community. The following implementing alternative C would be information contributed to this conclusion: marginally beneficial and would occur over a number of years. Impacts on the • The development s and act ions proposed socioeconomic environment would not in alternative C would not result in any be expected to significantly alter the identifiable adverse human health physical and social structure of the effects. Therefore, there would be no county or region. direct or indirect negat ive or adverse

213

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

SCOPING AND OTHER PUBLIC public comments are available to the public INVOLVEMENT EFFORTS and can be obtained through the contact information listed below. Currently the National Park Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- As a direct result of the public responses istration are both involved in planning for received, the environmental impact state- the Dry Tortugas area. The National Park ment considers the following issues: the Service is amending the General Manage- protection of the pristine natural marine ment Plan for Dry Tortugas National Park; resources including coral reefs, birds, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric sea turtles; the desire to maintain qualities of Administration is completing a Tortugas remoteness and tranquility; the appropriate- Ecological Reserve plan for the Florida ness of specific visitor activities in the park; Keys National Marine Sanctuary adjacent to the need for limits on visitation; the the park. The two agencies have similar, but preservation of Fort Jefferson; the effects of distinct missions, and different ways of fishing on fisheries resources; the desire to managing lands and waters within their establish a “marine reserve”; and the jurisdictions. limitations of the park’s infrastructure in the face of increasing visitation. At the onset of scoping, both agencies realized there was some confusion between A Federal Register notice and media the NPS and NOAA planning processes. As announcements initiated the beginning of a a result, the two agencies joined in a formal public comment period on the draft parallel, collaborative process to minimize plan. All interested agencies, groups and confusion and maximize public involvement individuals were invited to review the in both planning efforts. This collaboration document and submit comments. included coordinated schedules, linked web sites, joint scoping meetings, separate but Public meetings on the draft plan were held coordinated documents, and joint public in Washington, D.C., and five Florida loca- meetings on the draft plans. tions — Homestead, Naples, St. Petersburg, Marathon, and Key West. The date, time, The National Park Service completed the and location of each meeting was announced scoping phase through a public involvement in the Federal Register and through the effort, including five public meetings and a regional/local media. The availability of the newsletter requesting comments regarding Final General Management Plan / the future of the park. During the period Environmental Impact Statement was also October 27, 1998 – November 17, 1998, announced in the Federal Register. public meetings were held in Washington, D.C., and four Florida locations: Ft. Myers, Key West, Marathon, and Miami. CONSULTATION

Many public comments were given at the In accordance with Section IV of the 1995 public meetings, and approximately 200 programmatic agreement among the letters and Internet messages were received National Park Service, the Advisory Council in response to the newsletter. All comments on Historic Preservation, and the National given in response to the scoping process Conference of State Historic Preservation have been considered and will remain in the Officers, certain undertakings require only administrative record throughout the plan- internal NPS review for Section 106 ning process. A summary and listing of the purposes (see table 8). Other undertakings

217 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION require standard Section 106 review in on Historic Preservation, tribal officials, the accordance with 36 CFR 800, and in those U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other instances the National Park Service consults interested parties. as necessary with the state historic preservation officer, the Advisory Council

218 Consultation and Coordination

TABLE 8. CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106

Preservation maintenance actions intended to protect and stabilize These actions are historic structures at Fort Jefferson and Loggerhead Key (exclusion programmatically excluded from IV.B.1). Section 106 review outside the National Park Service Rehabilitation actions limited to “retaining and preserving, protecting and maintaining, and repairing and replacing in kind materials and features, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the accompanying guidelines” (exclusion IV.B.9).

Actions proposed by the Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy for inventorying, monitoring, researching, interpreting, and protecting submerged cultural resources (exclusion IV.B.4). Expansion/rehabilitation of the Fort Jefferson visitor center into These actions are anticipated to adjacent casemates. have no adverse effect (or unknown effects) on historic Upgrade of the casemates currently used for staff and visitor quarters. properties and would require consultation with the state Extension of the dock requiring archeological assessment of areas historic preservation office anticipated to be disturbed by construction activities (alternatives C, D, during project design and E). development

COORDINATION review process on the draft document, the planning process was conducted with other The Final General Management Plan federal agencies, state and local govern- Amendment / Environmental Impact ments, and interested organizations and Statement has been developed pursuant to individuals. Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) and the Council on LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZA- Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR TIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THE 1508.22). The scope of this process initially FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT focused on commercial services and visitors. PLAN AMENDMENT / The public scoping process revealed the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT need to expand the scope to include an STATEMENT amendment to the existing management plan. The revised intent of this planning An * denotes agencies/organizations that process is to prepare a comprehensive commented on the draft document. management plan that discusses protection and enhancement of the values for which Federal Agencies Dry Tortugas was authorized as a national Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, park. The document also includes Washington, DC recommendations for commercial services Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL and visitor use management. During the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, planning process, management alternatives Colonel Joe R. Miller, District Engineer have been developed that address resource Chief, Planning Division, James Duck, protection, user capacities, commercial Jacksonville District services, and limitations of park facilities. U.S. Department of the Interior Through scoping and the public comment Assistant Secretary, Fish Wildlife and

219 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Parks, Donald Barry, Washington, D.C. Superintendent, Big Cypress National Librarian, Washington, D.C. Preserve, Ochopee, FL Office of the Regional Solicitor, Superintendent, Biscayne National Park, Kahlman Fallon, Atlanta, GA Homestead, FL Office of the Solicitor, Molly Ross, Superintendent, Virgin Islands National Washington, D.C. Park, St. Thomas, VI U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chief Heinz Mueller, Atlanta, GA Steve Forsythe, Vero Beach, FL South Florida Field Office, Richard Refuge Manager, National Key Deer Harvey, West Palm Beach, FL Refuge, Big Pine Key, FL National Oceanic and Atmospheric U.S. Geological Survey Administration (NOAA) Biological Resources Division, G. OCRM-Coastal Programs Division, Ronnie Best, Miami, FL N/ORM3, Silver Spring, MD Water Resources Division, Aaron Higer, Superintendent Billy Causey, Florida West Palm Beach, FL Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Marathon, Key Largo, and Key West, U.S. House of Representatives/Senate FL Washington, D.C. NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service The Honorable Peter Deutsch, U.S. House Southeast Fisheries Center, Bradford E. of Representatives Brown, Miami, FL The Honorable Porter Goss, U.S. House of National Park Service Representatives Jerry Belson, Regional Director, Atlanta, The Honorable Bob Graham, U.S. Senate GA The Honorable Connie Mack, U.S. Senate Warren Brown, Program Analyst, The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., U.S. NPS, Professional Services, House of Representatives Washington, D.C. The Honorable John Tierney, U.S. House of Gary Davis, Channel Islands National Representatives Park, Ventura, CA The Honorable C.W. Young, U.S. House of Maureen Finnerty, Associate Director, Representatives Operations & Education, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. John Ehrenhard, Manager, Southeast State Agencies Archeological Center, Tallahassee, FL Florida Department of Agriculture and Stuart Johnson, Chief, Planning and Conservation* Compliance, NPS, Southeast Region, Florida Department of Community Affairs* Atlanta, GA Florida Department of Environmental Public Health Officer, NPS, Southeast Protection* Region, Atlanta, GA Florida Department of State, Division of Larry Murphy, Archeologist, NPS, Historical Resources* Intermountain Cultural Resource Florida Department of Transportation* Center, Santa, Fe, NM Florida Division of Marine Fish* Richard Ring, Superintendent, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Commission* Parks, Homestead, FL Office of Environmental Services, Mary Mike Soukup, Associate Director, Ann Poole, Vero Beach, FL Natural Resource Stewardship, Division of Marine Fisheries, Director Washington, D.C. Russell Nelson, Tallahassee, FL Kate Stevenson, Associate Director, Florida State Clearinghouse, Department of Cultural Resource Stewardship, Community Affairs, Tallahassee, FL* Washington, D.C. Governor's Commission for the Everglades,

220 Consultation and Coordination

Executive Director Bonnie Kranzer, Everglades Coalition, Co-Chair Shannon Coral Gables, FL Estenoz, Plantation, FL Office of the Governor, Rick Smith, Tallahassee, FL Park Manager, Bahia Honda State Park, Big City/County Agencies Pine Key, FL City Council, Islamorada, Village of Islands, Park Manager, Ft. Zachary Taylor Historic Islamorada, FL Site, Key West, FL Mayor Bonnie R. MacKenzie, Naples, FL Park Manager, John Pennekamp Coral Reef Mayor Shirley Freeman, Monroe County, State Park, Key Largo, FL Monroe County Commission, Key West, South Florida Regional Planning Council* FL South Florida Water Management District, Mayor Steve Shiver, Homestead, FL Executive Director Frank Finch, West Mayor Otis Wallace, Florida City, FL Palm Beach, FL Mayor Jimmy Weekley, Key West, FL State Historic Preservation Officer, Monroe County Planning Dept., Marathon, Tallahassee, FL FL The Honorable Daryl L. Jones, Florida Reference Section, Collier County Public Senate, Miami, FL Library, Naples, FL The Honorable Ken Sorensen, Florida Reference Section, Homestead Branch, House-District 120, Tavernier, FL Miami-Dade Public Library, Homestead, FL Reference Section, Miami-Dade Public Organizations Library, Miami, FL Center for Marine Conservation Reference Section, Monroe County Public Jack Sobel, Washington, D.C. Library, Islamorada, FL Florida Keys Field Office, Kim Anaston, Reference Section, Monroe County Public Key West, FL Library, Key Largo, FL Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Reference Section, Monroe County Public Council, Wayne Swingle, Tampa, FL Library, Key West, FL Miami Group, Sierra Club, S. Miami, FL Reference Section, Monroe County Public National Audubon Society, Stuart Strahl, Library, Marathon, FL Miami, FL South Dade Regional Library, Miami-Dade National Parks Conservation Association Public Library, Miami, FL Libby Fayad, Washington, D.C. St. Petersburg Public Library, St. Ron Tipton, Washington, D.C. Petersburg, FL Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ron Smola, West Palm Beach, FL Local Businesses Natural Resources Defense Council, Brad Island Flying Service, Inc., Seaplanes of Sewell, New York, NY Key West, Inc., Mickey Frederickson, Reef Relief, Executive Director DeeVon Key West, FL Quirolo, Key West, FL Noble Air, Inc., Seaplanes of Key West, South Florida Regional Planning Council, Inc., Ruebin Dunegan, Key West, FL Hollywood, FL Sunny Days Catamarans, Sonny Eymann, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Key West, FL Council, Wayne E. Daltry, N. Ft. Myers, The Yankee Fleet, Alan G. Hill, Key West, FL FL World Wildlife Fund Debbie Harrison, Marathon, FL

221 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

WRITTEN COMMENTS concerned about the fairness of fees charged to small commercial operators. The National Park Service received 5,942 letters, memorandums, faxes, or emails regarding the draft Dry Tortugas General Comments from the General Public Management Plan Amendment / Environmental Impact Statement. Of these, Regarding the research natural area boundary, 4,246 were emails of the World Wildlife Fund one commentor said that 50% of the park campaign supporting the Tortugas Reserve. should be a research natural area where no fishing or the general public was allowed; one · 605 were part of an NPCA campaign that commentor supported mooring buoys in the supports a plan at least as protective as entire park and wanted to increase the RNA alternative C, with a research natural area area to 70% of the park; 548 people faxed to covering 43% of the park. There was say they wanted simplified boundaries; and support for limiting the number of visitors four commentors wanted alternative E (or the to a particular area in the park, anchor most restrictive alternative. buoys for private boats, and educating visitors about how to avoid harming the There were some letters that opposed the plan resources. · 23 commentors were opposed, and 22 · 263 letters were received, from a campaign specifically mentioned fishing. One was by the Center for Marine Conservation, opposed to closing off access to the park. that support establishing a no-take research There also was a petition with 185 natural area inside the park to complement signatures to be sent to President Clinton the sanctuary’s proposed ecological form the American Sports Fishermen, who reserve. were petitioning to let them fish in the Dry Tortugas. · 548 faxes and more than 30 letters supported alternative C with simplified · 15 organizations sent letters, and five boundaries. contain substantive comments. There is one petition from the Word Wildlife Fund · There were an additional 143 commentors with 245 signatures supporting the who said they supported alternative C, ecological reserve. In addition, there is one specifically, or want the resources letter titled “Organizations in support of a protected. Tortugas Ecological Reserve” that contains names of 52 groups.

Comments from Businesses · Besides the organizations that sent letters containing substantive comments, the There were letters from six businesses, three Merrimack River Watershed Council, the (the Sunny Days, Yankee Fleet, and Seaplanes Friends of St. Sebastian River, the Calusa of Key West) with substantive comments Group Sierra Club, the American Littoral (explained below). Barrier Free Systems Society, Marathon Guides Association, supports preservation in the Tortugas, Stellaris The Nature Conservancy, the Conservancy Charters does not wish to have Loggerhead of Southwest Florida, and The Humane Key closed to the public, and Bonsai Diving is Society of the United States all support the plan. The Bluewater Network submitted

222 Summary of Public Comments

comments on appropriate marine engines Conservation Planning and Environmental that should be used in the park. Impact Analysis, NPS 1999):

It questioned, with reasonable basis, the ORAL TESTIMORY accuracy of information.

Five joint public meetings were held in Florida It questioned, with reasonable basis, the with the Florida Keys National marine adequacy of environmental analyses. Sanctuary during June 2000 in Homestead, Naples, St. Petersburg, Marathon, and Key It presented reasonable alternatives other West. One public meeting was held in than those proposed in the plan. Washington, D.C. on July 11, 200. A total of 45 speakers gave oral testimony at these It would cause changes or revisions in the meetings with 12 speakers representing preferred alternative. organizations including the Sierra Club, Propeller Club, the Florida Biodiversity Many of the comments expressed an opinion Project, the South Florida Sport Fishermen, the but did not meet the above criteria. Others Center for Marine Conservation, Oceanwatch, were outside the scope of the Dry Tortugas’ Reefkeeper International, the World Wildlife General Management Plan Amendment / Fund, the League of Women Voters of Florida, Environmental Impact Statement. Although the and the Southeastern Fisheries Association. National Park Service values this input, no response is provided to such comments. During these meetings, 25 attendees supported Comments that identified errors such as the preferred alternative, seven said they would misspelled words and typos were not included like greater protection than the preferred as substantive, but the National Park Service alternative offered or would like maximum appreciates the information and has corrected protection, and nine people gave substantive the errors. comments on the plan. Photocopies of letters from agencies and photocopies of letters or oral testimonies with OTHER COMMENTS substantive comments from organizations, businesses, educational institutions, and Sixteen letters and emails were received after individuals are provided at the end of this the comment period ended. Eight supported the section. Each comment letter with a preferred alternative and eight were opposed. substantive comment was assigned a numeric Those opposed were not in agreement with code; oral testimonies were assigned an limiting recreational fishing in a portion of the alphanumeric code. In the following list (table park. 9), the comment letter author’s name is followed by one of these numeric or alphanumeric codes. That same code is printed RESPONSES TO COMMENTS / at the top of the first page of the photocopy of SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS that letter. For example, the Center for Marine Conservation’s written comment letter, with The Council on Environmental Quality (1978) code #034, is reprinted, with “#034” at the top guidelines for implementing the National of their letter. As required, all agency letters Environmental Policy Act requires the are reprinted. The ones without a numeric code National Park Service to respond to did not have substantive comments. “substantive” comments. A comment is substantive if it meets any of the following criteria (from Draft Directors Order 12:

223 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The National Park Service’s responses to the South Florida Regional Planning Council 248 substantive comments in this (and the other) letters is printed on table 10, just before the letters have been reproduced. If the reader Organizations wants to know what the Park Service’s responses are to the Center for Marine Center for Marine Conservation (oral Conservation’s letter, he/she would look on testimony) #W5 250 table 10 for #034, where the comment(s) is Center for Marine Conservation (written (are) paraphrased and the response is given. statement) #034 257 Letter #034 may have had several substantive National Parks Conservation Association (oral comments, and on the table they will appear as testimony) #W7 277 034.1, 034.2, etc. At the end of the letters, we National Parks Conservation Association have reprinted a sample of the 263 letters from (letter) #035 279 the Center for Marine Conservation campaign, Natural Resources Defense Council #033 290 a sample of the 605 letters from the National Propeller Club of the United States #KW2 292 Parks and Conservation campaign, and a Reefkeeper International #031 294 sample of the 4,256 emails from the World South Florida Sport Fishermen #H4 299 Wildlife Fund campaign. Because none of World Wildlife Fund #032 300 these campaign letters, faxes, or emails had substantive comments, no responses have been provided. Businesses

Written transcripts for the public meetings and Seaplanes of Key West #038 304 copies of all the written comments are Sunny Days Catamarans #036 307 available for public review at Everglades Yankee Whale Watch/The Yankee Fleet National Park headquarters. #037 310

TABLE 9. LIST OF COMMENTORS AND Educational Institutions CODES Florida Biodiversity Project (oral testimony) Federal Agencies #H6 315 Florida Biodiversity Project (letter) #040 319 United States Environmental Protection Agency #039 235 Individuals

State Agencies Adams, June #019 329 Alexander, Jay #026 330 Florida Department of Agriculture and Baughman, Okie #021 331 Conservation 239 Bohnsack, James A. #025 333 Florida Department of Community Affairs 240 Cameron, William #041 334 Florida Department of Environmental “Crittermom” (crittermom@ aol.com) Protection 242 #023 335 Florida Department of State, Division of Decker, Fran #011 336 Historical Resources #043 243 DeHaven, Robert (oral testimony) #KW1 338 Florida Department of Transportation 244 DeHaven, H. R. (written comment) #018 341 Florida Division of Marine Fisheries 245 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 044 246

224 Summary of Public Comments

De Lima, Nedra #030 Note: this fax is Petition with an introductory e-mail message representative of 548 faxes that were and 14 typed names, followed by 10 pages received; because there was such similarity, with signatures and addresses #042B 415 all 548 faxes were not reprinted. 342 Fite, Mike #029 343 A sample of the 263 letters from the Center for Garrison, D. Wain #M1 344 Marine Conservation campaign 417 Gladding, Mary #KW4 346 Hedstrom, Don #042A 348 A sample of the 605 letters from the National Jones (?), Ed #013 350 Parks and Conservation campaign 418 Lamond, Pat and Carolyn #022 353 Preuss, Darlene #KW7 354 A sample of the 4,256 emails from the World Reynolds, Susan #028 355 Wildlife Fund campaign 419 Rist, Karsten A. #027 357 Robinson, Richard #012 358 Rodriguez, Clemente #017 360 Ruthardt, Doug #010 387 Smarsh, Jean #014 388 Swords, Velina #015 389 Tillotson, Frank #016 392 Vandeman, Michael #024 393 Young, Roy #020 404

225 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

226 TABLE 10. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PLAN

LETTER NUMBER/COMMENT COMMENT (PARAPHRASED) Response NUMBER Overall Concept 040.1; 040.2 The management plan does not identify scientifically justifiable goals and Park enabling legislation, mission goals, management zone prescriptions, and NPS-77 clearly state goals for the objectives. park (see the “Servicewide Laws and Policies and Special park Mandates and Agreements” section). Species- specific targets and measurable indicators will be developed in the next stage of planning (see the “Monitoring to Maintain Visitor Experience and Resource Protection” subheading in the “Management Zones” discussion).

The Draft General Management Plan Amendment / Environmental Impact A visitor experience and resource protection plan would be completed after the General Management Plan Statement does not define or identify indicators for assessing ecological Amendment is finalized. This plan will address visitor carrying capacity and identify the indicators, standards integrity. and monitoring strategies that can be used to ensure provision of quality experiences while protecting park resources. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the draft plan. The Research Natural Area 014.1; 015.1; 021.1; 024.1, 027.1, The plan should designate a portion of the park or the whole park as an off- Several areas (Long Key, Hospital Key, and the Long Key/Bush Key tidal channel) would be designated as 028.1, 029.1, 040.3, 034.3, KW1.2, limits preserve except for scientific research and other valid related activities special protection zones year-round. No activities except research would be allowed. Other areas, such as Bush KW1.1 where the general public is not allowed; this area would be no-take. The plan Key, East Key and the beaches of Loggerhead Key, might be designated special protection zones for part of the should reduce impacts on the reefs and grass beds around the fort by year when turtle and bird nesting is taking place. discontinuing the commercial sightseeing vendor permits. The southwestern half of Loggerhead Key, inland from the beach, would also be closed to human activity except research. Consumptive use of resources would be prohibited in the special protection zones and the entire research natural area zone (46% of the park under the proposed plan).

See the text following this table entitled “Why Implement a “No Take” Area?: Rationale for Developing a Research Natural Area at Dry Tortugas National Park” written by Dr. Robert Brock, Supervisory Marine Biologist at Everglades/Dry Tortugas National Park. 011.1, 033.1, 035.1, 035.2, 035.3, Expand the research natural area. The proposed action has been revised to simplify and expand (by 3%) the boundaries of the research natural 035.13, 035.12, W5.1 area. The National Park Service will consider enlarging the research natural area in the future if warranted to achieve resource protection goals. 042.1 The amount of fish taken in the Dry Tortugas area by sport fishing is totally Scientific research (Ault, et al. 1998, Ault and Bohnsack 1999) has shown that reef fish stocks in the Dry insignificant to the reproduction rate of the fish species represented there. Tortugas are deteriorating due to overfishing. For further details, see the text following this table entitled “Why Sport fishing has no adverse effects on turtles, birds, and water quality. Implement a “No Take” Area?: Rationale for Developing a Research Natural Area at Dry Tortugas National Park” written by Dr. Robert Brock, Supervisory Marine Biologist at Everglades/Dry Tortugas National Park. 012.1, 023.1 All fishing in and around the park should be prohibited The National Park Service does not have jurisdiction outside of park boundaries. See the text following this table entitled “Why Implement a “No Take” Area?: Rationale for Developing a Research Natural Area at Dry Tortugas National Park” written by Dr. Robert Brock, Supervisory Marine Biologist at Everglades/Dry Tortugas National Park. Anchoring and Mooring 034.6 Allow anchoring in the research natural area with conditions. Anchoring would continue to be permitted in most areas within zones other than the research natural area. Not allowing anchoring in the research natural area provides greater assurances that coral and other sensitive habitat/resources would be protected to the greatest extent feasible in conformance with overall RNA management objectives. 034.30 Consider mooring buoys in sensitive areas outside of the research natural The text has been changed to show that mooring buoys in areas outside the research natural area could be used area. as a management tool when appropriate. 012.2; 016.1 Private boats should not be allowed to drop their anchors in or around the Anchoring is not allowed in the research natural area in order to meet resource management objectives. park. Prohibiting anchors outside the research natural area (but within the park) is not warranted at this time. Anchoring would continue to be permitted in most areas and in zones other than the research natural area. Not allowing anchoring in the research natural area provides greater assurances that coral and other sensitive habitat/resources would be protected to the greatest extent feasible in conformance with overall RNA management objectives. Regulating anchoring or fishing outside the park is not within NPS authority/purview.

227 LETTER NUMBER/COMMENT COMMENT (PARAPHRASED) Response NUMBER 022.1 Use mooring buoys in ALL areas of the Dry Tortugas. Use anchors only in an Total elimination of anchors in all areas of the park is not necessary to meet resource management goals at this emergency. To protect coral reefs, ban anchoring and provide mooring buoys. time. Not allowing anchoring in the research natural area provides greater assurances that coral and other sensitive habitat/resources are protected to the greatest extent feasible in conformance with overall RNA management objectives. Mooring buoys will be used as deemed appropriate to achieve zone objectives outside of the RNA. Visitor Experience 013.1 The plan should restrict the number of visitors by limiting island access to the The plan will limit island access through a concession contract that provides service similar to current “fast cat/Yankee Cats.” commercial access. The proposed action has been revised to reduce the maximum number of people arriving by ferry from 200 to 150 per day. More than one boat would be used in the operation, and staggered arrival and departure times at the fort would be used as a management tool to maintain carrying capacity numbers and disperse use. Private boating must be allowed but will be limited by carrying capacity. Impacts on resources do not justify eliminating private boats at this point in time. 013.4 The plan should limit number of overnighters who can camp on the island. The proposed action has been revised to reduce the maximum campground capacity from 100 to 68 campers per night. A reservation system would be implemented to replace the first-come-first served system currently in use.

KW4.1 Designate section of beach for visitor to walk their pet dogs on Garden Key. Bringing dogs to the park would conflict with the goal of protecting wildlife resources. No dogs will be allowed in the park. 018.1 Enforcement would be easier if no fishermen, lobster hunters, or divers were Lobster hunting is not allowed; fishing would not be allowed in the research natural area in order to permit allowed. baseline monitoring; management zone boundaries have been modified to permit easier enforcement (see Alternative C map). As long as public use occurs in the park, there must be enforcement. 020.1 Don’t allow any visitors unless they travel by private sailboat and tie up only Commercial services facilitate access to the park. The National Park Service is mandated to allow access to to moorings. parks unless there is a resource issue that would preclude access. 030.1, 031.1, 034.4, 034.28, 034.39, Simplify the boundaries of the research natural area to enhance the See revisions to the RNA boundary on the Alternative C map, to which we have added latitude and longitude 035.6, 035.14 understanding by visitors of where no-take regulations apply. markings. 032.3 Simplify or modify the names of the zones so that visitors can more easily Zone names were selected to be consistent with the 1983 General Management Plan with the exception of the understand them. research natural area. “Research natural area” is a special designation used by federal agencies for areas dedicated to protecting biological diversity, nonmanipulative research, and visitor education. All zones are described in detail in this General Management Plan Amendment, and interpretive materials will be developed to explain the zoning scheme to the public 040.5; 035.18 NPS should designate scientifically defensible carrying capacities. The preliminary capacities are based on the considerable experience and sound professional judgment of knowledgeable resource managers and carrying capacity experts (see the “Preparers and Consultants” section). Capacity numbers will be tested and adjusted further during later implementation plans that are called for in the general management plan (see “Recommendations for Future Research and Planning” section). This planning process will involve further analysis of park resources, identification of standards and indicators, the establishment of a monitoring program, and additional research into resource and visitor experience sensitivities. Capacities in the general management plan are set at levels that the experts feel would not irretrievably jeopardize resource quality. Note that carrying capacities have been modified in the final document. Resource Protection 017, 034.14, 034.15, 034.16, W5.2 Manage fish and wildlife resources with bag limits and seasons, catch and For the response to this comment, see the text following this table entitled “Why Implement a “No Take” Area?: release not closures, restore fish and wildlife populations. Rationale for Developing a Research Natural Area at Dry Tortugas National Park” written by Dr. Robert Brock, Supervisory Marine Biologist at Everglades/Dry Tortugas National Park. 043.1 It is the opinion of the state historic preservation office that alternative E It is agreed that alternative E would provide the best level of resource protection. However, the proposed action provides the best protection for the unique and important cultural resources provides both resource protection and visitor use levels that allow for the fulfillment the park’s purpose and located within the park. mission goals.

228 Summary of Public Comments

LETTER NUMBER/COMMENT COMMENT (PARAPHRASED) Response NUMBER 044 The elkhorn and fused staghorn coral formations in the Long Key-Bush Key The elkhorn and fused staghorn formations in the Long Key/Bush Key channel would be designated a special tidal channel (sometimes called the 9-foot channel) are at risk. We have seen protection zone year-round. This area would be closed to visitor use and vessel traffic to provide added 40-foot lobster boats enter and exit the Garden Key anchorage using this protection for this at-risk community. Limited research and monitoring would occur to assess resource channel. Broken branches of elkhorn coral are evidence that boats have run conditions in this area. The boundaries of the zone may be adjusted, or management could be changed, in into the elkhorn coral. We recommend 9-foot channel be closed to vessel response to changing resource conditions. traffic, with the exception of those powered by oar or paddle. NPS staff could still use it for emergencies, but not routine activities. Potential concessioners should be discouraged from using the elkhorn coral patch as a routine tourist destination. Tidal current can be strong here. Many tourists have minimal snorkeling skills and could be injured and also damage the coral in this shallow areas. The status (patch and condition) of the coral should be monitored periodically. H4.1 Allow net casting for bait fish. This is not a GMP level issue. It is more appropriately answered in future implementation plans. Entrance Fee 013.3 Boaters should be charged a “per night” fee for anchorage around the fort. All private boats will be charged an entrance fee on a schedule similar to the fees charged at other units, with multi-day and annual passes available. Inadequacy or Accuracy of Information/Analysis 039.1 More information is needed to fully assess the impacts. Management plan See first response under Implementation Plans, below. implementation, enforcement, and impact mitigation of both existing conditions and possible future impacts warrant further discussion in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 039.2 Page iii gives a summary of the ecological, cultural and historical significance Text has been added to pages iii and 6 to explain the significance of East Key. The Alternative A map has been of the Keys in Dry Tortugas National Park, with the exception of East Key. redone to better show the 1983 zoning scheme for the park, including East Key. Page 53 contains a map that shows East Key as a combination of a natural zone and a historic zone. Please clarify East Key’s ecological and historical significance 040.7 The research and monitoring component should be more comprehensive. See below under implementation plans. 034.25, 034.31, 035.7 Carrying capacity numbers should be adjusted for specific sites. Carrying capacities have been modified in the final document.

229 LETTER NUMBER/COMMENT COMMENT (PARAPHRASED) Response NUMBER Implementation Plans (Later Details) 032.1, 032.2, 032.3, 032.5, 034.7. More details on education and interpretation component, staffing, future General management plans in the National Park Service are intended to establish general, conceptual guidance 034.8, 034.9, 034.10, 034.11, research, monitoring (including selecting standards and indicators), specific for the management of the parks. General management plans document the conceptual decisions upon which all 034.12, 034.013, 34.017, 034.18, concessions duties and schedules, and strategies to manage for capacities at future plans and management actions will be based. General management plans are intended to apply to parks 034.19, 034.20, 034.21, 034.22, specific sites (e.g., campground reservations) are needed. for a 15-year time period. For these reasons, parks undertake subsequent planning that tiers from the guidance of 034.24, 034.33, 034.34, 034.35, the general management plans. This second stage of planning provides more details for park management. They 034.36, 034.37, 034.38, 035.1, Page 133 mentions the park has solicited proposals for the preparation of implement the concepts of the general management plan. Examples are resource management plans and 035.4, 035.5, 039.3, 039.4, 039.6, solid waste management plan. In light of the Pollution Prevention Act passed interpretation plans. These implementation plans focus on activities, programs, or projects needed to achieve the 040.2, 040.5 by Congress in 1990, NPS should examine wastes produced in the park to mission goals and management prescriptions of the general management plan. Implementation planning determine ways to prevent or reduce that waste. The DEIS does not mention generally is deferred until an activity or project under consideration has sufficient priority to indicate that action whether the park will maintain a recycling program as part of the will be taken within the next several years. management plan. Sometimes the implementation plans immediately follow the general management plans to outline the specific The document should state the proposed measures to enforce regulations and actions or decisions needed to ensure adherence to the general management plan’s general concepts. The waste manage visitor use of Dry Tortugas National Park with regard to the management plan, with a recycling element, is an example of a more detailed implementation plan needed at this alternatives. time. Also needed immediately is a detailed monitoring plan, with standards and indicators to measure the effectiveness of management actions being taken to avoid or correct impacts defined as unacceptable in the The draft plan does not define or identify indicators for assessing ecological general management plan. Such a monitoring plan likely will be modified as change occurs in the resources. integrity. Likewise, an interpretive plan, outlining specific stories to be told and the media and staff needed to tell them with today’s technology and resources is needed. Adaptability is one of the reasons to do such implementation The document neither provides nor discusses measurable activities that could planning after the long-range GMP planning has been done. be used to manage natural resources in the park; does not mention whether a detailed implementation plan is forthcoming. More information should be included in the final EIS to describe how the NPS plans to manage visitors and impacts in the park. Further frequency and parameters of ecosystem monitoring should also be included. 039.5 The environmental impact statement should discuss procedures for events See cultural resources” in “Mitigation Measures” section (page 82 of draft.) such as unearthing archaeological sites during prospective ground-disturbing activities such as building repair and renovation. 039.7 The draft environmental impact statement does not include information The goal of the research natural area is to mitigate fishing/coral reef impacts in a pristine system. All other regarding plans to mitigate impacts that are already present at the park. The mitigation measures would be discussed in subsequent resource management plans. document does not state whether efforts have been made to identify and quantify mitigation needs in the park, or whether any plans have been made for mitigation. Is there a time frame for mitigating areas, which need restoration and if so, what is the schedule for implementing the actions? 030.1 W7.1 Simplify the boundaries of the research natural area to enhance enforcement The RNA boundary has been revised. See the revision to Alternative C map. of where no-take regulations apply. 040.7 The research and monitoring component should be more comprehensive. Commercial Services 013.2, 019.1, 025.1, 034.20, 034.28, Competition -- One comment (13) supported only one concession contract for The 1965 statute (Concessions Policy Act) that authorized long-term concessions contracts intended to minimize 036.1, 034.23, 034.32, KW7.1 transportation to the park. The rest of the comments supported more than one the scope of commercial operations (imprint on the land) by discouraging duplicate operations, hence concession contract to promote competition citing that costs could be competition. This has been the traditional way to manage concessions in parks for years. Although the 1998 reduced, service would be better, and the quality of service would stagnate statute states that contracts will not contain a clause granting an exclusive right to provide services, this does not without competition. mean that parks will necessarily have more than one operator providing a given service. However, the process of evaluating and selecting an operator is a competitive process. The decision to have a single ferry operator for Dry Tortugas is based on the need to provide an operator with a feasible business opportunity while providing additional funds for the park under the 1998 legislation. The concessioners’ rates will have to be approved by the National Park Service and will be based on similar services operating outside of the park. The quality of services provided by the concessioner will be regularly evaluated.

230 Summary of Public Comments

LETTER NUMBER/COMMENT COMMENT (PARAPHRASED) Response NUMBER 036.2, 037.2 One Vessel -- The concept in the draft GMP of having one large “mother Alternative C stated that the long-term goal of the park was to have a “self contained vessel.” This has been ship” ferry was challenged in favor of multiple ferry vessels. The advantages changed to say a “self contained ferry operation.” The intent is that the operation not be a strain on the existing of multiple vessels cited include providing a back-up in case of mechanical or infrastructure of the park, primarily the water and waste systems, dock and mooring space, and employee weather problems, the remoteness of the park, impacts of a large ship on the housing. Many of the advantages of a multiple vessel operation are correct. The proposal will be change to allow “adventure” visitor experience in the park, less capital expense, and staggered for “more than one boat.” schedules which would alleviate point loading at the fort. 036.3, 036.6 Don’t eliminate the existing commercial operators or write vessel The Park Service is required to follow federal procurement and contracting regulations that strictly prohibit specifications that would preclude some contract bidders. writing contracts that favor one party over another. The prospectus will be written to facilitate equal competition between bidders. 36.4, 37.3 Interim/Trial Period -- Both commentors suggested that the initial operation The Park Service has the legal and contractual right to include an evaluation period as part of all contracts for be with two contracts similar to existing conditions. This would allow time new services to allow for necessary adjustments to the contract. If the Park Service issues one contract initially for an evaluation of numbers of vessels, side excursion trips, and other details they have the right to issue a second contract if deemed appropriate; however, they can’t withdraw one of two of the operation. contracts if that is deemed appropriate. 036.5, 037.1 These comments questioned the draft plan’s assessment of who would The assessment of the current visitor interest in “touring style excursions” is correct, and with the aging of the participate in side excursion trips. They contended that most existing visitors population it would be expected that interest in those types of activities would continue. Informal discussions are “day trippers” interested in touring style excursion in stable, covered with tour providers in Key West indicate that if more adventurous types of water activities were aggressively vessels and not inclined towards snorkeling, SCUBA diving, kayaking, or any marketed there would also be a desire to participate in those activities, given the near pristine resource of the more adventurous types of water activities. They cite weather and conditions in the park compared to other opportunities in the region. Both types of experiences are appropriate, rough, open seas as being intimidating to most visitors. nonconsumptive uses. The Park Service will consider both when identifying specific activities during the prospectus development process and the evaluation period after a contract is awarded. 38.1 The allocations of visitors use (ferry – 200/day and seaplane – 50/day) do not The allocations of visitor use in the proposal are based on the ability of the resources to accommodate use take into consideration several factors that affect commercial operations at without unacceptable impacts – carrying capacity. The National Park Service is required by law to consider DRTO. These include the 20% Key West travel agent commission; 30% carrying capacity in general management planning. The allocations are based on overall carrying capacity of the higher costs for seaplanes to operate in salt water; the variability park and an equitable distribution between different user groups. The factors cited in the comments are of/dependency on the weather; and the average of “ideal days”, when the economic factors and are also important. They were considered when the economic feasibility of the proposal services run at capacity, and the off season/bad weather days, when the was evaluated and contributed to the decisions for only one seaplane contract and one ferry contract. The service may not even operate. allocations exceed what any one operator currently is allowed ensuring the economic feasibility of the proposal and respecting the ability of the resources to accommodate use without unacceptable impacts. 034.18, 034.28, 035.5, 035.15 Commercial service operations should not be solely responsible for The Park Service has no intention of having the commercial operators doing all the interpretation and education interpretation in the park but should provide guided/supervised excursion in the park. They are intended to be partners in providing this service to visitors. NPS staff will take the lead in trips (guide to visitor ratio of 1:8). providing these services. NPS efforts will be supplemented by commercial staff that is trained by NPS staff to a competency equivalent to a seasonal NPS employee. 034.19, 035.19 Commercial operators should provide “low cost fare” days for economically The National Park Service cannot require in a contract that a concessioner subsidize trips. The NPS intent is to challenged visitors that could not otherwise afford to go to DRTO. keep the cost of visiting the park as low as possible so as many visitors as possible can visit. 020.2, 041.1 Stopping all commercial visits to DRTO will reduce visitation by 90% and The NPS mission, and a primary objective of the park, is to provide for visitor enjoyment of park resources in a dramatically reduce visitor use associated impacts. manner that leaves them unimpaired for future generations. Commercial transportation of visitors to the park is appropriate to enable public appreciation of park resources and values. At this time it would not be appropriate to eliminate this segment of visitors. The proposed action has been revised to lower the maximum number of visitors that would arrive by commercial ferry or seaplane from 250 to 210 people per day. The impacts of this level of use on resources and the visitor experience will be monitored, and use levels will be adjusted if impacts are unacceptable. 034.31 While it is commendable that the NPS attempt to enable concessioners to It is in the park goals to enhance visitor experience. The Park Service proposes to use partners (commercial make an economic livelihood it is not in the criteria of park goals. operators) to accomplish this goal. It is not in the best interest of the Park Service, commercial operator, or visitors to propose a concession that is not economically feasible. 034.20 Concessions have to meet NPS “necessary and appropriate” criteria and The plan has demonstrated that transportation to the park is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the goals of specific standards would not be arbitrary and capricious to ensure resource protection, visitor experience, and education. Some of the detailed “specific standards” that would be compatibility with park objectives of protecting, conserving, and preserving imposed on the commercial operator are identified in the plan at a level appropriate for a general management resources. plan. The remaining specific details to ensure resource protection will be developed during the prospectus process and included in the contract.

231 Summary of Public Comments

WHY IMPLEMENT A “NO TAKE” AREA?: RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPING A RESEARCH NATURAL AREA AT DRY TORTUGAS NATIONAL PARK by Dr. Robert Brock, Supervisory Marine Biologist, Everglades/Dry Tortugas National Park

Introduction

In 1984, Dry Tortugas National Park (the park) had approximately 18,000 visitors. In 1992, visitation was approximately 24,000, an increase of a seemingly unalarming 25% over this time period. In 2000, however, it is estimated that visitation will be approximately 100,000, an incredible increase of 550% since the first surveys were taken in 1984. Although there is little argument that increased visitation to the park is in large part due to the advent of the commercial ferry service out of Key West, it also appears that the number of private boaters visiting the park has likely increased dramatically as well. In 1988, there were 17,499 boats registered in Monroe County (Florida Keys). According to the Monroe County Tax Collectors Office (personal communication), that number had steadily risen each year to 25,862 in 1999, an increase of 48%. There is little doubt that boats are bigger and faster today with improved navigational equipment (GPS), making a private journey to the park certainly more plausible. This increase in visitation and presumably increased recreational activities such as snorkeling, diving, and fishing are of great concern to the National Park Service (NPS) in being able to fulfill their legislated mandates and mission goals.

Congressional Legislation

The NPS was created “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects herein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as well leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (Organic Act of 1916). In 1992, Public Law 102-525 established the Dry Tortugas National Park to (a) protect and interpret a pristine subtropical marine ecosystem, including an intact coral reef community; (b) to protect fish and wildlife; (c) to protect the pristine natural environment of the Dry Tortugas group of islands; (d) to preserve and protect submerged cultural resources; and (e) in a manner consistent with the above, provide opportunities for scientific research. In 1998, Executive Order 13089 mandated that Federal agencies “preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment.” Clearly, Congressional enabling legislation and law demands that the park preserve and protect fish and wildlife and their essential habitat (see “Servicewide Laws and Policies and Special Park Mandates and Agreements” section). A “no take” research natural area (RNA) is the best and most appropriate mechanism that exits to fulfill the NPS mission and the park’s enabling legislation.

Scientific Studies

During the development process of park’s RNA alternatives, several different no-take evaluations were conducted using the best available scientific literature and information to provide the broadest possible protection and coverage for threatened, endangered, and rare marine resources. Historically, numerous fisheries surveys have been conducted in and adjacent to the park (Schmidt et al.1999). In fulfilling no-take RNA objectives/criteria, boundary alternatives were based on regional fisheries surveys, physical oceanography and larval dispersal pathways, and benthic habitat investigations. Fisheries surveys recently summarized by Ault et al. (1998)

232 Summary of Public Comments involve 35 economically and ecologically important Florida Keys reef fish stocks being quantitatively compared using a systems approach that integrates sampling, statistics, and mathematical modeling. These data, collected from 1979 to 1996 (and still being collected) use a underwater visual fish census survey technique to (1) develop a reef fish population abundance index for individual species; (2) calculate the average length of the fish in the exploitable phase of the stock; and (3) correlate this information with head-boat catches in the Florida Keys. Results indicated that 13 of 16 grouper (81%), 7 of 13 snappers (54%) and 2 of 5 grunts (40%) were by definition overfished, or below the federal-state 30% SPR (Spawning Potential Ratio) threshold minimum standard for overfishing. These data indicated, for example, black grouper are currently seriously overfished. The average size of black grouper caught in 1997 is only 40% of what it was 50 years ago (22.5 versus 9 lbs.), and in terms of population stability and resiliency, black grouper SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass) is now only 5% of what it once was.

Data was further refined for making grouper/snapper/grunt species comparisons for locations sampled inside and outside the park boundaries using density (mean abundance) and fish size assessments. This information can be found in Schmidt et al. (1999). Specific criteria (boundary options) used in the RNA developmental process also suggested that the proposed park research natural area should be of sufficient size to contain and provide the greatest benefit in protecting important “apex predator species” such as overfished snappers and groupers. For each of the 3 RNA alternatives, fishery species were evaluated in a series of 15 assessments of fishery stock indicators — using density of recruits, adults (exploitable fish), and fish size as shown in table F- 10 in the Draft General Management Plan Amendment / Environmental Impact Statement.

In addition to NOAA’s and Univ. of Miami’s stationary visual fish census surveys (Ault et al. (1998), a volunteer roving underwater fish census technique (RDT) has been developed by the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) and is used at the park and throughout the Florida Keys in collaboration with NOAA/UM. Species occurrence and abundance is obtained using a frequency of occurrence technique that allows comparisons between the two surveys. REEF stations are currently being compared for fish abundance indices throughout the Florida Keys and both inside and outside DRTO and the proposed Sanctuary’s proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve (TER). (Schmitt and Sullivan 1996, Schmidt et al. 1999, Schmitt et al. 1999).

Ecosystem Approach

The RNA developmental process also considered the “larger ecosystem” as a specific objective when evaluating the appropriateness of the boundaries for the various alternatives. This objective was satisfied when the park’s RNA boundary was contiguous or shared a common boundary with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’ proposed ecological reserve. It is hypothesized that larvae produced by spawning aggregations found in the deeper waters of the sanctuary’s ecological reserve will settle and seek both refuge and food in the park’s shallow water reefs and sea grass beds.

Summary

In summary, conventional species-specific fishery management tools such as allowable catch quotas, size, bag, or trip limits have not prevented overfishing or habitat damage. The enabling legislation that created Dry Tortugas National Park is crystal clear in that fish and wildlife are to be preserved and protected and that the ecosystem is to remain intact and unimpaired. Extracting fish and wildlife from the park clearly goes against this legislative

233 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION mandate. A good example of why the park took the lead in developing this protective reserve can be compared with human health. A person does not take up preventative measures (i.e., improved diet, exercise) after a health problem is discovered; a person takes up these preventive measures so that a health problem will not occur. The Park Service should not wait until resource damage (perhaps irreparable) is obvious, the Park Service is being proactive in ensuring that resource damage such as depleted fish stocks is not allowed to occur. With population estimates of south Florida projected to add millions more people to the greater ecosystem, the park’s research natural area will serve as an important “environmental insurance” against these added pressures.

References

Ault, J. S., J. A. Bohnsack, and G. A. Meester. 1998. Schmidt, T. W., J. S Ault, and J. A. Bohnsack. 1999. Schmitt, E, F., K. M. Sullivan-Sealy, and D. W. Feeley. 1999. Schmitt, E. F. and K. M. Sullivan. 1996.

234 039

235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 043

243 244 245 044

246 247 248 249 W5

250 251 252 253 254 255 256 034

257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 W7

277 278 035

279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 033

290 291 KW2

292 293 031

294 295 296 297 298 H4

299 032

300 301 302 303 038

304 305 306 036

307 308 309 037

310 311 312 313 314 H6

315 316 317 318 040

319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 019

329 026

330 021

331 332 025

333 041

334 023

335 011

336 337 KW1

338 339 340 018

341 030

342 029

343 M1

344 345 KW4

346 347 042a

The undersigned referred to in this letter refer to the petition from the American Sports Fishermen, which has been reproduced start- ing on page 405 in this document.

348 The undersigned referred to in this letter refer to the petition from the American Sports Fishermen, which has been reproduced start- ing on page 405 in this document.

349 013

350 351 352 022

353 KW7

354 028

355 356 027

357 012

358 017

359 017

360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 010

387 014

388 015

389 390 391 016

392 024

393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 020

404 042b

This petition was received from Don Hedstrom; see page 348.

405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419

APPENDIX A: PARK’S ENABLING LEGISLATION, PUBLIC LAW 102-525 APPENDIXES APPENDIX B: COLLECTIVE MISSION AND MISSION GOALS OF THE NPS SOUTH FLORIDA UNITS

MISSION

The mission of the National Park Service, within the context of the South Florida ecosystem, is to integrate and achieve the collective purposes for which the parks and the agency were created and to promote and facilitate the Park Service partnership and technical assistance programs.

To achieve this mission, the park units will actively coordinate their plans, decisions, and operations. NPS staff will jointly participate in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, in the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, and in other related ecosystem restoration efforts. The focus of this participation is in natural ecosystem management, cultural resource protection, and the promotion of public understanding and appreciation of the NPS park units as part of the South Florida ecosystem.

SIGNIFICANCE

The combined significance of the four South Florida NPS units is based on the following factors:

· All the parks depend on freshwater quality and flows that are determined by a complex regional water management system. · T he parks are adjacent to and directly affected by two of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation. · T he parks are subject to more external, adverse impacts on their ecosystems than any other units in the national park system. · The fundamental resources of the four parks are indicators of the integrity of the South Florida ecosystem.

MISSION GOALS

The following collective South Florida park mission goals state the conditions that should exist when the goals have been attained. These statements form the basis for future park planning and management for all the parks.

I. Natural and cultural resources and associated values within the South Florida national parks are protected, restored, and maintained in good condition and are managed within the broad context of the South Florida ecosystem.

· Water is free of introduced agricultural nutrients and urban-related pollutants. · Water levels reflect quantities resulting from natural rainfall. · Water is distributed according to pre-engineered drainage patterns. · The timing of water deliveries corresponds to natural cycles. · The diversity, abundance, and behavior of native South Florida plants and animals in both terrestrial and marine environments (including coral reefs and sea grass beds) are characteristic of pre-engineered drainage conditions. · Invasive, exotic species have been eradicated. · Hydrology, fire, and other natural processes are managed to perpetuate a healthy, viable, and dynamic ecosystem. · Threatened and endangered species are removed from state and federal listings due to management recov ery efforts. · Archeological, historical, and other significant cultural sites are identi fied, evaluated, and protected. APPENDIXES

II. South Florida national parks contribute to knowledge about natural and cultural resources, natural ecosystem management, and associated values; decisions about ecosystem management, natural resources, and public use are based on adequate scholarly and scientific information.

· Parks are leaders in the South Florida community in developing and refining ecosystem management techniques. · Necessary and appropriate scientific research is funded and accomplished. · Monitoring programs designed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of ongoing programs are in place. · The parks are acknowledged as significant contributors to the knowledge and understanding of the history and prehistory of South Florida.

III. The public understands and supports the need to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem for this and future generations.

· South Florida parks provide opportunities for visitors to find a sense of remoteness, peace, and refug e in a place o f natural beauty. · An integrated information and education program for the South Florida parks is in place. T he program is multicultural, works effectively with the mass media to convey key issues at local and national levels, and ensures that the various publics understand the environmental issues and restoration efforts occurring in the South Florida ecosystem. · Park interpretive messages explain the differences and commonalties between the National Park Service’s mission and mission goals and those used by other regional parks and agencies. Interpretive messages are objective and respectful of differing missions and management policies. · National, state, and local officials and decision makers understand, support, and appreciate the positive value that the proper management of South Florida natural and cultural systems has on the quality of human life. · Visitors are provided access to representative areas of the four South Florida’s parks in a manner that is consistent with the protection of park resources. · Visitors to South Florida parks are aware o f the variety o f experiences available, as well as those attainable in other regional parks and preserves.

IV. The economic and social benefits of the South Florida parks are recognized and play a prominent role in state, local, and private sector economic decision making.

· Local and regional economies depend on ecosystem resources, such a potable water. · The economic impact of visitor spending on local and regional economies is clearly documented and conveyed to state, local, and private sector decision makers. · The role and impact of NPS employee spending on the local and regional economies are clearly documented and conveyed to state, local, and private sector decision makers.

V. Strong partnerships exist among the South Florida parks and local, regional, national, and tribal governments, as well as with nongovernmental organizations, to support the restoration and protection of natural and cultural resources, along with the stewardship of the South Florida ecosystem.

· The National Park Service has an active leadership role in managing South Florida’s natural ecosystem through active participation in and partnerships with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, and other related ecosystem restoration efforts. · In its partnerships the National Park Service brings expertise in natural ecosystem management and in promoting public understanding and appreciation of the South Florida ecosystem. · Federally recognized South Florida American Indian tribes and staff from the South Florida parks cooperate with mutual respect, open lines of communication, and an understanding of respective cultures. Appendix B: Collective Mission and Mission Goals of the NPS South Florida Units

· Federal, state, local, and tribal land use and water management agencies recognize the mutual interests and responsibilities of all levels of government to protect the South Florida ecosystem. Protection is reflected in their land use and management plans and documents. · The four units promote and administer NPS historical and recreational assistance programs. · Appropriate facilities are available to support park programs and partnerships.

VI. South Florida national parks are responsive, efficient, safe, accountable, and productive. They use current management practices, systems, and technologies to accomplish their collective mission.

· Management activities are outcome-based and accountable; reliable mechanisms are in place to track the progress of ongoing programs · All park resource management programs meet professional standards; staff professionals receive training and opportunities for development within their fields. · Equipment, staff, and expertise are shared among the parks and park partners to maximize the effective use of these resou rces. · Employees have the tools to success fully accomplish their roles and functions. · Park staffs take personal responsibility and are accountable for furthering their programs. · Park staffs are valued for the expertise they add to their park. · Park resource managers are connected to resource professionals in other parks, as well as to partners and associates outside the parks. APPENDIX C: EXECUTIVE ORDERS 13089 “CORAL REEF PROTECTION”AND 13158 “MARINE PROTECTED AREAS” Appendix C: Executive Orders 13089 “Coral Reef Protection”and 13158 “Marine Protected Areas”

9 APPENDIXES

10 Appendix C: Executive Orders 13089 “Coral Reef Protection”and 13158 “Marine Protected Areas”

11 APPENDIXES

12 Appendix C: Executive Orders 13089 “Coral Reef Protection”and 13158 “Marine Protected Areas”

13 APPENDIXES

14 APPENDIX D. MORE DETAILS ON COMMERCIAL SERVICES

The Omnibus Park Management Act of 1998 was its place. All fran chise fees stay with the Park Service passed by Congress and signed into law November 13, to be used for concession-related or resource protection 1998. Section IV of the Omnibus Act, which deals projects. T he park that collects the fees retains 80%, directly with NPS concessions, is called the National and 20% is used servicewide. Another important Park Service Concessions Management Improvement provision of the new law is how commercial use Act of 1998. This legislation supercedes the authorizations (formerly called incidental business Concessions Policy Act, which has guided NPS permits or IBPs) are managed. The total number of management of commercial services for the last 30 such commercial use authorizations for any activity years. T he new legislation incorporates much of the deemed appropriate might be limited to protect philosophy of the old law including “development … resources or improve visitor experiences. shall be limited to those accommodations, facilities, and services that are necessary and appropriate for By law (36 CFR 5.3), a written instrument must public use and enjoyment of the unit of the National authorize all commercial services in national parks. Park System in which they are located and are The National Park Service has several authorization consistent to the highest practicable degree with the tools to choose from to manage commercial services in preservation and conservation of the resources and parks. When a service is offered inside a park that uses values of the unit.” In addition, the secretary o f the parklands and/or facilities, it is usually authorized by a interior should “exercise his authority in a manner concessions contract. When on a regular basis a consistent with a reasonable opportunity for the commercial activity begins and ends outside the park concessioner to realize a profit.” Thus, only but uses the park during the activity, the typical economically feasible concession operations should be instrument used is commercial use authorization introduced. (CUA). When a commercial activity that will only occur once is proposed in a park, a special use permit T he new law also makes some significant changes. is typically issued. Other instruments, such as Large (more than $500,000 annual revenues) commercial filming permits and right-of-way concessioners are no longer given a right of preference agreements, are used to authorize those associated in renewal of contracts. The term of new contracts will activities. The Park Service also has cooperative normally be 5 to 10 years, with 20-year contracts only agreements with several nonprofit organizations to sell issued in special financial situations with approval interpretive books and materials in many visitor from the NPS director. Concession permits will be centers. discontinued, and a short-form contract will be used in APPENDIX E: RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE C AS THE PARK SERVICE’S PROPOSED ACTION

This section provides a summary of the reasons and • protect, stabilize, restore, and interpret Fort rationale for the National Park Service’s selection of Jefferson, an outstanding example of 19th century alternative C as the preferred altern ative. T he contents masonry fortification of the Final General Management Plan Amendment / • preserve and protect submerged cultural resources Environmental Impact Statement describe the • provide opportunities for public enjoyment and conditions and impacts that would result from the scientific research in ways consistent with the park implementation of each alternative. T hese impacts, purpose both beneficial and negative, were the basis for making the preferred alternative selection. This section will not In addition to its purpose, parks within the national redescribe the content of the document but will park system are managed within the framework o f summarize how the important elements of the existing laws and policies. Often, however, there is alternatives were trad ed off to arrive at the preferred more than one possible course of action that would alternative. result in managing within this framework. Such is the case with planning for the future of Dry Tortugas National Park. Five different alternatives are con- SUMMARY sidered in this document, each with a different course of action and different future conditions. Selecting Each o f the alternatives that include a research natural among them required considering all of the relevant area achiev es the objectives for est ablishing a research facts and information and reasonably weighing the natural area. Alternative C does this with the minimum benefits and advantag es of each altern ative against the amount of area removed from recreational activity, advantages of the other alternatives. including fishing, but gains the greatest increment of resource protection. In enlarging the research natural The overarching laws and policies that guide area visitor activity, diversity, and opportunity is management of national parks focus management significantly reduced in the park. However, managing decisions on five key factors and base every decision the remainder of the park as a natural/cultural zone, as on at least one of the following: in alternative C, does not remove management options in the future. If speci fic resou rce and visitor experien ce preventing the loss of resources conditions are not maintained, park managers have a maintaining and improving the condition of full range of management tools available to stop resources impacts, including designated mooring buoys, permits, providing visitor services, and educational reservations, guided tours, and site closures. and recreational opportunities protecting public health safety and welfare improving operational efficiency and PROCESS FOR SELECTING sustainability THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE protecting employee health safety and welfare

The purpose of a general management plan is to guide Decisions in the general management plan planning management actions that will support and fulfill the process involve a broad view of the park and its purposes of the park, which are to resources and involve a clear evaluation of gains and benefits in resource protection, visitor experience, • protect and interpret a pristine subtropical marine health and safety, and park operations that are ecosystem, including an intact coral reef presented by each alternative. T he process for selecting community a preferred alternative for the Dry Tortugas General • proactively manage populations of fish and Management Plan Amendment required defining the wildlife, including loggerhead and green sea key decision factors (from the list above) in a manner turtles, sooty terns, frigate birds, numerous that was germane to the key issues of Dry Tortugas migratory bird species, and other sensitive species and describing for each factor the advant ages that each • safeguard the pristine natural environment of the alternative presented. For this process the factors were Dry Tortugas group of islands described as Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

Maximizing the protection of resources — This Alternative E would offer the greatest protection included the condition of marine and terrestrial becaus e it establishes a maximum area of natural resources resulting from implementation research natural area, provides for greater of an alternative — the condition of submerged biodiversity, creates maximum restriction and cultural resources; the type and amount of controls on visitor behavior, and establishes education for resource protection, the amount of higher level of research and monitoring monitoring and directing of visitor use; (similar to alternatives C and D). However, biodiversity and marine populations; surveying, the addition of the research natural area does monitoring, and research activity; and the not necessarily constitute significant resource relationship to Florida Keys National Marine advantag es becaus e the preferred Sanctuary’s management strategies. con figuration provides the necess ary rang e and size of habitats to accomplish zone goals. Maximizing the diversity of visitor experiences — This included opportunities for independent Maximizing the diversity of visitor experiences and guided travel to and within the park — the Alternative A would be the least preferred because level of visitation accommodated and the range degraded resources would result from greater of activities available; the degree of challenge visitor use; also there would be poor control and adventure, solitude, and staff encounters; of crowding, poor control of safety and public the opportunities for education, interpretation, health; and low-quality visitor experience. and information; and the overall quality and diversity of the visitor experience. Alternative B would be better, with less crowding, better control, better standards for service, and Maximized operational effi ciency — T his slightly improved resources for visitors to included efficien cy and effectiven ess in experien ce. operations for resource protection, concessions management, interpretation/education/ Alternative E would be better. It would provide for a information, and maintenance. more managed and structured experience and limited self-selection of activities by visitors, Following is a summary of the advantages of each especially private boaters; there would be alternative. fewer options for activities, but there would be better support services, the best means to Maximizing the protection of resources control crowding, and a greater guarantee of a Alternative A would provide the least protection of quality, low-density visitor experience. resources because o f impacts from increas ed visitation, low potential for biodiversity, Alternatives C and D would be the best with more accomplishing few surveys and monitoring, a certainty of intrapark travel, much better low level of research, random educational control of crowding, better diversity in the contact, and few patrols to monitor visitor opportunities for visitor experiences, more activities. freedom to experience a remote marine environment for private boaters than in a Alternative B would provide minor additional completely managed and structured tour, and protection becaus e there is a better ability to a high improvement of resources encountered limit visitor numbers, surveys would be by visitors. completed, resources would be regularly monitored, mooring buoys could direct Maximizing operational efficiency visitors to less sensitive areas, and patrols Alternative A would be least preferred becaus e o f would monitor private boaters. understaffing and no control of visitor numbers — too many people doing too many Alternatives C and D would offer greater protection things in too many places. becaus e they establish the minimal are necess ary for an effective research natural Alternative B would be better because there would area, provide greater biodiversity, increase be some limitation on number of visitors and restrictions and controls on visitor behavior, increased staff; there might be mitigation of and provide higher levels of research and some public use with better control of visitor monitoring. numbers and more staff.

17 APPENDIXES

Alternatives C and D would be additionally better factors were applied to the alternatives. Is or does the with improved control of visitors, a better alternative match between use and staff, and more concessioner involvement in park operations 1. Represent the full-range of habitats in Dry and visitor management. Tortugas National Park? 2. Have a res earch natural area zon e that is large Alternative E would be the most attractive because it enough to be self-sustaining — does it contain would offer the best control of visitors, at least 20% of each of the park’s benthic require less day marker management for the habitats? research natural area delineation, match 3. Have a res earch natural area zon e large appropriate staff levels with visitation, and enough to maintain apex predators? provide more concessioner involvement in 4. Consider the larger ecosystem — uplands, park operations and visitor management. shallows, sea grass, and coral? 5. Allow activities that do not detract from Additionally, a separate evaluation was conducted for research values o f the area? configuring boundaries of the research natural area. To select an appropriate size and configuration, several The following tables present the comparison of the alternatives against these factors.

2 TABLE F-1. REPRESENTATION IN EACH PROPOSAL OF COMMUNITY AND HABITAT TYPES AS MAPPED BY DAVIS (1979)

Note: In the following tables, the figures have been recalculated to reflect the change in the boundary for alternative C, the proposed action. The figures for alternatives D and E have not been recal culated.

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative Natural Area, Natural Area, C (Proposed Alternative D Alternative E Action) Total Area of Park included in Proposal 46% 41% 99.5% Community Type Sea Grass (27%)1 44% 71% 99.6% Bank Barrier/ Fringing Reef (<1%)1 15% 0% 100% Patch Reefs (<1%)1 70% 34% 99.5% Algal Communities (<1%)1 48% <1% 100% Staghorn Reefs (1.8%)1 77% 12.4% 91% Octocoral Hardbottom (16%)1 33% 36% 99.9% Sedimentary Habitats (54%)1 49% 30% 99.6% Land (<1%)1 49%a 4% 76%a

1 The figures represent the percentage of community and habitat types in all of Dry Tortugas National Park as mapped by Davis (1979). 2 T hese data address the criterion requiring that a research natural area repres ent the full range o f habitats. T he objective in this evaluation was for 20% or greater representation. a These figures do not take into account the small historic preservation/adaptive use zone on Loggerhead Key. This zone is approximately 10 acres and would be excluded from research natural area designation.

18 Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

2 TABLE F-2. THE PERCENTAGE AND (NUMBER) OF LONG-TERM MONITORING SITES INCLUDED IN EACH PROPOSAL

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, (Proposed Action) Alternative D Alternative E Coral (5)1 80%(4) 20%(1) 100%(5) Water Quality (5) 80%(4) 20%(1) 100%(5) NOAA Reef Fish (9) 44%(4) 11%(1) 100%(9) Reef Fish (12) 67%(8) 33%(4) 100%(12) Sea Grass (9) 67%(6) 33%(3) 89%(8) USGS (9) 56%(5) 22%(2) 100%(9) Lobster (57) 33%(19) 7%(4) 96%(55) TOTAL(49 (excluding lobster)) 63%(31) 24%(12) 98%(48)

1 These figures represent the total number of monitoring locations by subject of interest in the entire park. 2 These data address the criterion requiring that a research natural area include previous research and long-term monitoring sites. The objective for this evaluation was 50% or greater.

1 TABLE F-3. THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF SPAWNING AGGREGATION AREAS IN EACH PROPOSAL

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, (Proposed Action) Alternative D Alternative E Snapper Partial Yes Yes Grouper No No Yes

1 These data address the criterion suggesting that a research natural area include fish spawning aggregation areas. The objective for this evaluation was for full inclusion of both areas.

2 TABLE F-4. REPRESENTATION IN EACH PROPOSAL OF WATER DEPTH S AS MAPPED BY FDEP/FMRI.

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, (Proposed Action) Alternative D Alternative E

Total Area of Park 46% 41% 99.5% included in Proposal Bathymetry 0 – 3 Feet (1%)1 26% 6% 96% 3 – 6 Feet (3%)1 46% 33% 98% 6 – 12 Feet (7%)1 29% 41% 98% 12 – 18 Feet (6%)1 35% 45% 99.7% 18 – 30 Feet (12%)1 35% 36% 99.0% 30 – 60 Feet (52%)1 55% 50% 99.6% 60 – 100 Feet (17%)1 37% 22% 100%

1 The figures represent the percentage of water depths in the park as mapped by FDEP/FMRI. 2 These data are used as a surrogate to address criteria suggesting that a research natural area be large enough to be self-sustaining, encompass a wide variety of essential contiguous habitat, and maximize biodiversity. The objective for this evaluation was 20% or greater representation.

19 APPENDIXES

The water depths are shown graphically on figure C1, which also has an overlay of the proposed action (alternative C).

20 Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

Figure C-1 Bathymetric Analysis map

21 APPENDIXES

back o f map

22 Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

1 TABLE F-5. INCLUSION IN EACH PROPOSAL OF AREAS THAT BEST REPRESENT THE PARK’S BENTHIC COMMUNITIES (Jaap pers. com., Fourqueran pers. com., Wheaton pers. com., and Jaap et al. 1998)

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, (Proposed Action Alternative D Alternative E Community Type Bank Barrier/Fringing Reef Bird Key Reef (Long Key Reef) – 1 Yes2 No Yes Patch Reefs Loggerhead Reef – 2 Yes No Yes Little Africa – 3 Yes No Yes Texas Rock – 4 Yes Yes Yes Algal Communities E of White Shoal – 5 Yes No Yes SSE of Fort Jefferson Harbor – 6 No No Yes Staghorn Reefs NE edge of White Shoal – 7 Yes No Yes Octocoral Hardbottom Area west of Pulaski Shoal Light – No No Yes Sea Grass Site A – 9 Yes Yes2 Yes Site B – 10 Yes Yes Yes Coral Species at Risk Acropora palmata thicket – 11 No No Yes

1 T hese data address the criterion requiring that a research natural area repres ent the full range o f habitats. 2 These locations are either on or just inside the proposed research natural area boundary and may not be sufficiently buffered from activities outside the research natural area. The objective for this evaluation was full inclusion of sites.

TABLE F-6. MEASURES OF DISTANCE FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT STATION AND MEASURES OF BOUNDARY 5 COMPLEXI TY

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, (Proposed Action) Alternative D Alternative E Distance1 to centroid2 2.4 4.5 1.5 Distance1 to farthest corner 6.7 8.2 8.3 Number of new boundaries3 3 a 23 b Uses lines of latitude and longitude Some 4 Yes Some 4 c Total acreage of the proposal 29,773 26,721 64,453

1 Distance is measured in statute miles from Garden Key. To convert statute miles into nautical miles multiply by 0.8684. To convert nautical miles into statute miles multiply by 1.1516. 2 Levels of poaching in Caribbean marine reserves are significant and correlated with distance from a law enforcement station. Therefore it seems reasonable to consider the location of a given proposal relative to Garden Key (currently the center o f law en forcem ent activity at the park). The “ centroid” is defined as the center o f mass of an object having constant density.

23 APPENDIXES

3 As a possible measure of complexity related to enforcement we might consider the number of additional “new boundaries” or line segments that are required by each configuration. 4 These proposed configurations make use of some line segments that are not whole minutes of latitude and longitude. However, the effect this may have on the enforcement or identity of an area has not been determined. 5 These data address the criterion suggesting that a research natural area be enforceable and identifiable. a Two of the new boundary segments in this proposed configuration are straight lines, while the while the third coincides with the anchoring zone described as a circle 1 nautical mile in radius centered on the Garden Key Harbor Light. b Two of the new boundary segments in this proposed configuration are straight lines, while the third proposes to follow a bathymetric contour and other navigation-related benthic features. c Although this alternative makes use of some line segments that are not whole minutes of latitude and longitude, with the exception of the excluded area around Garden Key, the boundaries of the proposed research natural area are coincidental with that of the park, thereby significantly reducing complexity and improving identity.

The distances are shown graphically on figure C-2, which also has an overlay of the proposed action (alternative C).

TABLE F-7. LENGTH AND PERCENT OF SHARED BOUNDARY WITH THE SANCTUARY’S ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AS A MEASURE OF COMPATIBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY WITH THE TORTUGAS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE OUTSID E THE 2 PARK BOUNDARY

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, (Proposed Action) Alternative D Alternative E Length1 and percent of shared boundary 8.8(70%) 12.5(100%) 12.5(100%)

1 Length is measured in statute miles. 2 These data address the criterion suggesting that a research natural area consider the larger ecosystem and be compatible with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s Tortugas Ecological Reserve.

TABLE F-6A. MEASURES OF DISTANCE FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT STATION AND MEASURES OF BOUNDARY 5 COMPLEXI TY

Research Natural Research Research Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, (Proposed Action) Alternative D Alternative E Distance1 to centroid2 2.6 (Better) 4.5 (Good) 1.5 (Best) Distance1 to farthest corner 6.7 (Best) 8.2 (Good) 8.3 (Good) Number of new boundaries3 3 a (Better) 2 (Better) 3 b (Best) Uses lines of latitude and longitude Some 4 (Better) Yes (Better) Some 4 c (Best) Total acreage of the proposal 29,773 (Better) 26,721 (Best) 64,453 (Good)

1 Distance is measured in statute miles from Garden Key. To convert statute miles into nautical miles multiply by 0.8684. To convert nautical miles into statute miles multiply by 1.1516. 2 Levels of poaching in Caribbean marine reserves are significant and correlated with distance from a law enforcement station. Therefore it seems reasonable to consider the location of a given proposal relative to Garden Key (currently the center o f law en forcem ent activity at the park). The “ centroid” is defined as the center o f mass of an object having constant density. 3 As a possible measure of complexity related to enforcement we might consider the number of additional “new boundaries” or line segments that are required by each configuration. 4 These proposed configurations make use of some line segments that are not whole minutes of latitude and longitude. However, the effect this may have on the enforcement or identity of an area has not been determined.

24 Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

Figure C-2

25 APPENDIXES

back of figure

26 Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

5 These data address the criterion suggesting that a research natural area be enforceable and identifiable. a Two of the new boundary segments in this proposed configuration are straight lines, while the third coincides with the anchoring zone described as a circle of 1 nautical mile in radius centered on the Garden Key Harbor Light. b Two of the new boundary segments in this proposed configuration are straight lines, while the third proposes to follow a bathymetric contour and other navigation-related benthic features. c Although this alternative makes use of some line segments that are not whole minutes of latitude and longitude, with the exception of the excluded area around Garden Key, the boundaries of the proposed research natural area are coincidental with that of the park, thereby significantly reducing complexity and improving identity.

1 TABLE F-8: APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF FISHING ZON E INCLUDED IN PROPOSED RESEARCH NATURAL AREA INSIDE THE PARK

Research Natural Research Research Number of Fishing Area, Alternative C Natural Area, Natural Area, Trips 1981–84 Fishing Zone (Proposed Action) Alternative D Alternative E 3 (0.75%) 1 100 100 100 93 (16%) 2 100 23 100 10 (2%) 3 0 0 100 24 (4%) 4 90 100 100 369 (63%) 5702597 30 (5%) 6 0 0 100 12 (2%) 7 0 65 100 43 (7%) 8 0 18 100 1 (0.25%) 9 0 0 100 TOTAL TRIPS = 585

1 These data address the criterion suggesting that a research natural area consider impacts on visitor activities and commercial services (e.g., recreational fishing). Alternatives that impact recreational fishing opportunities the least in zones 2, 5, and 8 were considered more favorable.

TABLE F-9. SUMMARY OF HOW EACH PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS Research Natural Area, Alternative C Research Natural Research Natural Research Natural Area Criteria (Proposed Action) Area, Alternative D Area, Alternative E I. Represent the Full Range of Habitats at the Park A. Does the research natural area contain the full range of habitats? (table Yes No Yes F-1) B. Does the research natural area contain at least 20% of each habitat Most No Yes type? (table F-1) C. Does the research natural area include areas that best represent each Most Very Few All benthic community? (table F-5) D. Does the research natural area provide protection for species at risk? Yes No Yes (table F-11)

27 APPENDIXES

Research Natural Area, Alternative C Research Natural Research Natural Research Natural Area Criteria (Proposed Action) Area, Alternative D Area, Alternative E II. Include Previous Research and Long- term Monitoring Sites A. Does the research natural area include the full range of monitoring Yes Yes Yes sites? (table F-2) B. Does the research natural area include at least 50% of long-term Most No All monitoring sites? (table F-2)

III. Sufficient Size to Contain Apex Predators A. Does the research natural area provide apex predator protection? (table Suitable Marginal Suitable F-10) IV. Large Enough to be Self-Sustaining A. Does the research natural area include known spawning aggregation Partial One Both areas? (table F-3) B. Does the research natural area include the full range of bathymetry? Yes Yes Yes (table F-4) C. Does the research natural area include at least 20% of each bathymetry Yes Most Yes class? (table F-4) V. Enforceable and Identifiable A. Does the research natural area location encourage compliance and Best Good Better facilitate enforcement? (tables F-6 and F-6A) B. How complex is the research natural area boundary? (tables F-6 and F-6A) Better Better Best C. How large is the research natural area? (tables F-6 and F-6A) Better Best Good VI. Considers Socioeconomic Impacts A. What is the impact of the research natural area on recreational fishing? Medium Low High (table F-8) VII. Considers Larger Ecosystem A. Is the research natural area contiguous with the sanctuary’s Partial Full Full ecological reserve? (table F-7)

28 Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

TABLE F-10. APEX PREDATOR ANALYSIS IN DRY TORTUGAS REG ION

Data based on fish density (numbers of fish seen/Bohnsack-Ault 1994–98 visual census sample) and mean size (cm). Density represents a measure of population stability and resiliency; adult average size represents a measure of yield potential. Data cited from Schmidt et al. 1999. “Site Characterization for the Tortugas Region: Physical Oceanography and Recruitment.” 1999 Report prepared for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the National Park Service by Lee, T. N., E. Johns, D. Wilson, and E. Williams.

Alternative C Alternative Alternative Apex Predators by Density & Size (Proposed Action) D (1-site) E (8 sites) (6 sites) Black Grouper-Density-Pre-recruit 0-(0.2) -0- 0-(0.2) Black Grouper- Size-(Exploited) 56-60, 66-75 cm (2 -0- 56-60, 66-75 cm of 6 sites) (3 of 8 sites) Red Grouper-Density-pre-recruit 0-(0.304-0.625) -0- 0-(0.304-0.625) Red Grouper (size-Exploited) 0-(1-55) -0- 0-(65-70 cm) All Grouper combined/Density/ Pre-recruits 0-(0.6-0.9) -0- 0-(0.6-0.9) All Large Grouper Combined/Density/ 0-(0.2-0.3) -0- 0-(0.2-0.3) Exploited Yellow-tail Snapper Density-Pre-recruit 0-16 0-16 0-16 Yellowtail Snapper Size (Exploited) 0-(36-50 cm) 36-50 0-(36-50) Gray Snapper Density-Pre-recruits 0-(1-5) 1-5 0-(1-5) Gray Snapper Size-Exploited 34-38 (3 of 6 sites) 31-34 (31-34-(34-38) (5 of 8 sites) Mutton Snapper Density-Pre-recruits None collected None collected None collected Mutton Snapper Size-(Exploited) 0-(50-60)(3 of 6 -0- 0-(50-60) (3 of 8 sites) sites) (29 sites) (6 sites) (56 sites) Spiny Lobster Density- 0-5, 39-66 0-5, 39-66 0-5, 66-231 Spiny Lobster Size 75/84-145/154 75/84-110/119 75/84-154/162

TABLE F-11. DRAFT LIST OF MARINE FISH/CORAL REEF FISH STOCKS AT RISK IN THE PARK

COMMON SCIENTIFIC PARK SURVEY, SOURCE PROTECTION NAME NAME LOCATION CRITERIA Goldentail moray Muraena milaris Park Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 Rare, not currently protected Spotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari Pulaski shoal, Longley & Hildebrand, Threatened, state protected Loggerhead Reef 1941;Schmidt 1976 Mottled cusk-eel Lepophidium sp. White Shoal Longley & Hildebrand, 1941; Rare, not currently (jennae) Robbins et al 1986 protected Lined Seahouse Hippocamous erectus Park – shallow grass Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Proposed IUCN status (punctulatus?) beds, Suthwest channel “vulnerable” Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus White Shoal, Long Key Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 and Depleted, fed-state Reef many others protected; Proposed IUCN, AFS threatened sp. Jewfish E. itajara Windjammer wreck, Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 and Depleted, fed-state Texas Rock, Long Key many others protected; Proposed for reef IUCN, AFS threatened sp. lists Speckled hind E. drummondhayi Park Bohnsack et al. 1994 Depleted, proposed for IUCN, AFS threatened sp. lists. Mutton hamlet E. afer Park Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently protected

29 APPENDIXES

COMMON SCIENTIFIC PARK SURVEY, SOURCE PROTECTION NAME NAME LOCATION CRITERIA Coney E. fulvus Park-A 60’ channel Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Depleted, proposed AFS threatened sp. list. Yellowmouth grouper Mycteroperca Park-East Key Longley & Hildebrand, Rare (park); Depleted, interstitialis 1941;Bohensack et al. 1994 TERA Yellowfin grouper M. venosa Loggerhead Key Longley & Hildebrand, Depleted, not currently 1941;Bohensack et al. 1994 protected Scamp M. phenax Park Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94; Rare (park), not currently protected Gag M. microlepsis Loggerhead Key/Bird Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 and Proposed as "vulnerable" Key reef flats others by IUCN. Orangeback bass S. annualaris Park Rydene & Kimmel, (1990-94) Rare (<100' depth) (park), not currently protected Blue hamlet Hypoplecterus gemma White shoal, Loggerheard Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 and Proposed AFS threatened K. Windjammer, Long others sp. List Key Greater soapfish Rypticus saponaceous “Windjammer” Jordan & Thompson, 1905; Rare, not currently Schmidt (1976) protected Roy al gramma Gramma loreto White shoal Schmidt (1976) Rare, One individual observed Not previously reported in Fla (Humann,1994) Night sergeant Abududuf taurus Loggerhead Key, Garden Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently Key protected Hogfish Lachnolaimus White shoal, Long Key Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 and Depleted, proposed foe maximus many others IUCN "vulnerable" sp. List.. Dwarf wrasse Doratonotus Turtle grass/Loggerhead Longley & Hildebrand, 1941, Rare, currently not megalepsis ke y Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 protected Lancer dragonet Diplogrammus Loggerhead Bank Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare one specimen pauciradiatus collected, not protected Swordtail jawfish Lonchopisthus Loggerhead reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, currently not micrognathus protected Mottled jawfish Opistognathus Loggerhead reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, currently not maxillosus protected Freckled stargazer Gnathsgnus egregius Loggerhead reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently protected Saddle stargazer Platygillellus Park Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, currently not rubrocinctus protected Roughhead blenny Acanthemblemaria Park Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 First reported as common, aspera now rare, not protected Spinyhead blenny A. spinosa Park Rydene & Kimmel (1990-94) Rare, not currently Hildebrand unable to confirm protected identity Glass blenny Coraliozetus diaphana Tortugas atoll Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, currently not protected Wrasse blenny Hemiemblemaria Tortugas atoll Longley & Hildebrand, 1941, Rare, currently not simulus Rydene & Kimmel, (1990-94) protected Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis White shoal, Long Key Longley & Hildebrand, 1941, and Depleted, proposed IUCN others "vulnerable" sp. Rainbow parrotfish Scarus guacamaia Park Longley & Hildebrand, 1941; Rare, proposed IUCN Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 "vulnerable" sp. list. Key blenny Starksia starcki Park Longley & Hildebrand, 1941, Rare, proposed AFS Jones & Thompson, 1978 threatened sp. list. Checkered blenny S. ocellata Bird Key reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently protected Hairy blenny Labrisomus Loggerhead key, Garden Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Reported rare by Longley nuchipinnis Key & Hildebrand, 1941 Downy blenny L. kalisherae Bird Key reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Currently reported rare in Park. Longfin blenny L. haitiensis Bird Key flats Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rarely collected, not protected Bluethroat Pikeblenny Chaenopsis ocellatus Bird Key flats Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently protected Diamond blenny Malacoctenus boehlkei Park Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 Rare, not currently protected. Humann 1994 reports not in Florida. Barfin blenny M. versicolor Bird key flats, Longley & Hildebrand, 1941; Rare, not currently

30 Appendix E: Rationale for Selection of Alternative C as the Park Service’s Proposed Action

COMMON SCIENTIFIC PARK SURVEY, SOURCE PROTECTION NAME NAME LOCATION CRITERIA Loggerhead reef Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 protected. Humann 1994 reports not in Florida. Barred blenny Hypleurochilus Park-Logerhead Reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941; Rare, not currently bermudensis Bohnsack & McClellan, 1998 protected Sharpnose goby Gobiosoma evelyane Park Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 Rare, currently not protected, previously not reported in Florida (Humann, 1994) Cleaning goby Gobiosoma genie Park Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 Rare, currently not protected, previously not reported in Florida (Humann, 1994) Leopard goby Gobiosoma saucrum Park Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 Rare, not currently protected Notchtongue goby Bathygobius curacao Bird Key reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently protected Sponge goby Evermannichthys Park-sponge habitat Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently spongicola protected Marked goby Gobionellus Loggerhead Key Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently stigmaticus shoreline protected Rusty goby Priolepsis hipoliti Park Rydene & Kimmel, 1990-94 Rare, not currently protected Banner goby Microgobius Bird Key flats/Bush Key Longley & Hildebrand, 1941; Rare, not currently microlepsis flats Schmidt (1976) protected Pugnose wormfish Cerdale floridana Bird key reef Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, not currently protected Spotted whiff Citharichthys macrops Loggerhead bank Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, 1 specimen reported Marbled puffer Spheroides dorsalis 60’ channels adjacent to Longley & Hildebrand, 1941 Rare, currently not Garden Key, Bird/Bush protected Keys Honeycomb Lactophys polygonia Park Rydene & Kimmel. 1990-94; Rare, not currently cowfish Robbins et al. 1986 protected; not reported in Gulf of Mexico

31 APPENDIX F: DETAILS OF NATURAL RESOURCE DATA GATHERED AND PROJECTED

Note: Because the area added to the research natural area zon e under alternative C in the final document is only 3% different than in the draft document, a minimal difference, the following figures were not recalculated for the final document. The following figure, B5, was also not reconfigured to show the new proposed boundary. The new proposed boundary is shown on the Alternative C map.

Table A2: (a) Description of reef type classification. (b) T otal area (in m2) of underwater (benthic) habitats within the park; areas are given by depth category (less than and greater than 3 m) and for the total area. (c) Proportion of benthic habitat areas contained within a research natural area zone for alternatives C and D.

(a) Reef Type Description Patch Reef Small diffuse reefs consisting mainly of large boulder corals, which are often surrounded by a halo of barren sand caused by grazing on surrounding sea grass. Reef Flat Shallow to medium depth reefs consisting mainly of coral outcroppings, sand patches, and scattered sea grass beds. Fore Reef Areas of extensive coral growth that include spur-and-groove formations characterized by a wide depth range. Deep Reef Reefs at depths greater than 22 meters.

(b) Benthic Habitat Area <=3 m in depth Area >3 m in depth Total Area Hardbottom 157,382 0 157,382 Sand 1,213,788 115,872,419 117,086,208 Sea grass 9,941,308 34,440,246 44,381,554 Patch Reefs 637,419 28,086,108 28,723,527 Reef Flat 9,125,964 36,758,816 45,884,779 Fore Reefs 427,995 11,036,247 11,464,242 Deep Reefs 0 1,497,517 1,497,517 Total 21,503,856 227,691,353 249,195,209

(c) Alternative C Alternative D Benthic Habitat ≤3 m >3 m Total ≤3 m >3 m Total Hardbottom 100.0 NA 100.0 0.0 NA 0.0 Sand 78.7 40.0 40.4 2.9 20.1 20.0 Sea Grass 43.0 20.6 25.6 26.0 41.4 37.8 Coral Reefs 41.5 41.3 41.3 25.5 36.0 34.8 Figure B5: Diagram showing the spatial extents and boundaries of NPS research natural areas and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s ecological reserves (ERs) for three proposed management alternatives and one nonalternative scenario: (a) alternative C without the sanctuary’s ecological reserves (not considered in the document); (b) alternative C with the sanctuary’s ecological reserves; (c) alternative D; and (d) alternative E. Alternatives A and B have no research natural area zone. back APPENDIX G: LETTERS FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ON RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES APPENDIXES

36 Appendix G: Letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

37 APPENDIXES

38 Appendix G: Letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

39 APPENDIXES

40 Appendix G: Letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

41 APPENDIXES

42 Appendix G: Letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

43 APPENDIXES

44 Appendix G: Letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

45 APPENDIX H: SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES STRATEGY

This submerged cultural resources strategy reflects basic tenets fundamental to submerged cultural resources management. It has been developed to specifically elaborate NPS policies and guidelines regarding all cultural resources for application to Dry Tortugas National Park submerged resources, which are the majority of park cultural resources. Sound management of submerged lands in the National Park Service requires adequate scholarly and scientific knowledge about resources. This strategy was developed from a scientific perspective reflecting the tradition of scholarly research identified in the park’s enabling legislation and its application in the development of NPS management decisions (as mandated in the Omnibus Act of 1998). Incorporated into this strategy is the perspective that effective management of submerged lands requires concurrent consideration of natural and cultural resources for inventory, monitoring, research, interpretation, education, and protection activities conducted within the park.

I. Cultural Resource Inventory Program

Although there is a small potential for inundated prehistoric terrestrial sites, most of the submerged sites within Dry Tortugas National Park (DRTO) are historic. The current park boundary contains more than 275 historically documented maritime casualties, (shipwrecks, groundings and strandings), some from as early as the sixteenth century, and human activity there has left an equally long material record. Many other maritime casualties lie immediately to the west of the current park boundary on Tortugas Banks. Archeological sites of Dry Tortugas National Park and the Tortugas Banks share a common ecosystem and maritime history that provide the context for interpretation of archeological remains. The sites of both areas must be studied within the same context to properly interpret the archeological reco rd contained in each component. Lands outside DRT O are managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ag ency (NOAA) and the State of Florida. Every effort will be made to enhance interagency cooperation and partnership so that the submerged resources and associated values of Tortugas Banks are afforded at least the same level of protection, preservation and study as those within DRTO. Systematic inventory of submerged lands within DRTO has been conducted annually from 1993–1997 by the NPS Submerged Resources Center (SRC), formerly Submerged Cultural Resources Unit. Currently more than 90% of navigable areas in the park shallower than 10m has been surveyed with remote sensing equipment directed toward location of cultural remains. A portion of this area, primarily South Loggerhead Reef has been investigated and documented archeologically. This area has also been surveyed using remote sensing equipment that characterizes natural resources on the seabed, which has demonstrated the cost-effectiven ess of a combined natural and cultural survey approach. The survey was conducted in part to develop and refine a model methodology for application to other NPS submerged areas. Although most of the 10m or shallower priority area has been surveyed and the presence of cultural remains indicated, only a portion of surveyed area has been archeologically documented and evaluated for significance. Very little area deeper than 10m has been surveyed. The long-term goal of 100% survey of all submerged lands and evaluation of all archeological materials within the park can be met in a stepped approach designed to cover high-potential areas and provide interim information for management decisions. Immediate goal is to complete 100% remote sensing survey of all navigable areas shallower than 30 feet (10m) following the model developed during the 1993–1997 survey. This model can serve as minimum acceptable standards. Priority consideration should be given to combining seabed classification with the cultural resource remote sensing survey. Data will be added to the cumulative Geographic Information System (GIS) developed during the SRC survey known as the DRTO Survey GIS Database and to the NPS Archeological Sites Information Management System (ASMIS) and appropriate natural resource databases. Intermediate goal is to conduct 20% random sample remote sensing survey of areas within the park deeper than 30 feet to characterize nature and extent of cultural resources in this area. Completion of this task will aid planning for additional survey to complete 100% coverage. Although magnetic anomalies located by remote sensing survey indicate presence of cultural materials, they should be archeologically evaluated to determine their nature and significance as soon as possible, ideally concurrent with remote sensing operations. Anomalies that are not investigated are not included in the park’s Appendix H: Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy

archeological site inventory, however, prior to investigation they can be considered as potentially significant archeological areas for management purposes. Anomaly areas must be dived to determine whether ferrous materials are buried. If exposed, minimal documentation, which includes precise location, written description, video and photography, should be conducted and analyzed for potential significance and added to the DRTO Survey GIS Database and ASMIS. Systematic test excavation to evaluate buried anomalies should be second priority to documentation of exposed remains, although it should be conducted as soon as practical. Full evaluation and documentation of sites determined potentially significant relative to the National Register for Historic Places criteria will be completed as areas are archeologically evaluated. An appropriate multiproperty National Register nomination will be completed. This nomination may be either a thematic, district or perhaps cultural landscape nomination. DRT O, ideally combined with Tortugas Banks, because o f its many properties of potential national and international significance, should be evaluated for eligibility as a World Heritage Site upon acceptance o f the multi-property National Register nomination.

II. Monitoring

Knowing resource condition and how it changes on a continuing basis is fundamental to the park’s ability to manage its resources and perpetuate their integrity. A comprehensive monitoring plan, to which both natural and cultural specialists will contribute, will be developed tested and implemented. The proposed program will embrace a holistic approach, which includes both natural and cultural aspects so far as practical in a single set of protocols. The objective is to understand the nature and present condition of resources and how and why they change so as to direct management decisions and evaluate their success or failure. Initially, identification of appropriate criteria such as integrity, potential significance, accessibility, and vulnerability will be developed to aid in establishing priorities for inclusion in the program on a site by site basis. Then, procedures will be developed that will minimally provide an index detailing which attributes will be monitored, set parameters for management decisions, and define which data will be collected for longitudinal study and evaluation. The monitoring program will contain at least three principal components: 1) Annual basic site assessment of the sites prioritized by the criteria; 2) Event-driven assessments of impact from storms, hurricanes, vessel groundings, divers, ARPA violations, etc.; 3) Long-term detailed assessments to monitor site dynamics. Sites for this component will be selected upon the completion of the remote sensing survey and site evaluation of the current Inventory Program (section I). The monitoring results can trigger a full multi-disciplinary site impact investigation based on specific indicators of changing site conditions. These indicators, developed as part of the monitoring program, may be site specific. The monitoring program will be multidisciplinary, including both natural and cultural resource assessment components (e.g., coral growth rates and distribution). It will incorporate comprehensive baseline data and produce cumulative results. All data will be accessible in the DRT O Survey GIS Database and ASMIS and natural resource databases as appropriate.

III. Research

Research conducted within DRTO that contributes significantly to knowledge about park resources and is directed toward park management objectives will be promoted. Research will conform to the NPS Cultural Resource’s Management Handbook and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines in addition to regional and park specific policies. All research conducted on archeological resources must be done under an approved research proposal and either a NPS Research permit or an Archeological Resources Protection Act permit. Activities having an affect or potential to affect cultural resources are governed by the National Environmental Policy (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and Antiquities Act of 1906 (AA).

47 APPENDIXES

T he park research coordinator must receiv e proposals in written and electronic format. The proposal should consist of a clear purpose statement discussing the proposed research, research design and the relevance of the research to park goals, regional archeology and the mission of the NPS. In addition, the proposal should present discussions on theoretical frameworks and methodology and include a discussion on potential site impact that includes consideration of both natural and cultural effects. Proposals that incorporate sediment disturbance, collection of materials or any intervention must include compelling evidence as to why the proposed research is essential to significant research concerns and that the purpose of the research can only be achieved by utilizing park resources. A clear statement discussing requests for NPS support is to be presented. Any cooperative agreement, memoranda of understanding or memoranda of agreement should be established prior to proposal submission. Specific research products and a timetable for their submission and a vitae of the principal investigator (along with vita for senior project participants) should accompany proposals. All student training, field schools and education-oriented research will be completely nondestructive, nonimpact and nonintrusive to both natural and cultural resources. Access will focus on sites already fully documented and results will be incorporated into the monitoring program (outlined in section II). Review and evaluation of research proposals will follow standard NPS procedures. In addition, the park will request review by appropriate park scientific and management personnel, Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC), SRC, and two appropriate academic peer revi ewers (one o f which may be suggested by the researcher submitting the proposal). Upon proposal approval, specific permitting conditions will be specified. In addition to standard permitting conditions that detail data dissemination, a park-specific condition requires all electronically accessible data meet ASMIS and DRTO Survey GIS Database standards and format. The park and SEAC will receive copies of all original data, written, graphic and electronic, and publications that directly or indirectly result from research conducted under the proposal or permit. All field data, objects, specimens, samples, features and structures retrieved, along with associated records and reports will be managed within the park’s museum collection. For projects that entail no collections or intervention, a research permit will be issued. Projects impacting cultural resources (through sample and artifact collection, excavation, or any ground disturbing activities or other intervention) will require an ARPA/AA permit. The Southeast Regional Director signs all park ARPA permits. If the research proposal is denied, the research coordinator may provide comments and suggestions for the principal investigator to incorporate into a revised research design. The park research coordinator will determine the extent to which fieldwork will be monitored. The monitoring protocol will vary on a project-by-project basis according to planned activities. If research is proposed within the boundaries of DRTO and in non-park service areas (such as areas under the jurisdiction of NOAA, other federal agenci es, or the state of Florida), the agencies involved will coordinate review and evaluation of the proposal and collectively develop a monitoring program. The principal submitting the proposal is responsible for compliance with all agency-specific requirements.

IV. Education/Interpretation

Visitors and others interested in the submerged cultural resources of DRTO will be provided with access to high quality interpretation and opportunities to enhance appreciation of the specific archeological and historical values of the park’s cultural resources in a wide historical context. The park will develop a list of sites that will be identified and interpreted to the public. Other cultural sites will not be identified to the public. Listed sites will have complete documentation and monitoring program in place. T he exceptions are sites currently identified to the public. These sites should be priority for development of the monitoring program. Currently listed sites, for example the “Windjammer Site” and the “East Key Site” (both listed in the park brochure) should be priority for developing the monitoring program and as such serve as test cases for monitoring. Additional sites that may be appropriate for opening to public access and interpret ation will be considered. These sites should be fully evaluated for impact to the site and surrounding natural resources, and a monitoring program should be in place prior to identifying to the public. Alternatives to direct access to submerged cultural and natural resources, such as through video, virtual environment and Internet technology will be developed. Specific considerations will be given to enhancing access and experience to the non-diving public and producing interpretive products accessible to all levels of

48 Appendix H: Submerged Cultural Resources Strategy

education that emphasize NPS goals and mission, site preservation and the cultural diversity of the park’s maritime history. The park will also develop an integrated regional interpretive approach to maritime history as represented by the archeological record within the natural environment of DRTO, Biscayne National Park, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Florida parks. The park will develop formal partnerships where appropriate to enhance a regional approach to archeological investigations and public interpretation of their results.

V. Protection

Protection of natural and cultural resources is a park priority. Protection extends to the associated values of these resources in the broader ecosystem and cultural context. Specific enforcement protocols will be developed for archeologically sensitive areas. The park will consult with SEAC to develop a standardized ARPA response capability and procedures. The park will develop, evaluate and institute remote-sensing surveillance devices to enhance law enforcement efficiency. The park will also develop park-specific submerged cultural resource law enforcement training for park rangers that will be incorporated into law enforcement priorities and park patrol procedures. The park protection program will revise and institute appropriate partnerships with other agencies, organizations and individuals to enhance resource protection capabilities and effectiveness. Scuba diving is encouraged in the park. The park will investigate and evaluate a permit system for scuba diving and determine whether it is a desirable management alternative. The park will encourage diving only in archeologically surveyed and evaluated areas and direct divers away from archeologically sensitive areas, where moorings are present or boat anchoring is allowed. Mooring buoys directing diving to specific natural resource locations will be placed so as to protect archeological sites in the vicinity. Buoys placed for access to archeological sites will be placed so as to protect natural resources in the vicinity. Security of site location data in the park is to be maintained. The park will work to develop computer security procedu res for access to site-speci fic data cont ained in the DRT O Survey GIS Database by appropriat e personnel while ensuring site-location data security. Specific site-location data shall be treated as secure information regardless of source, whether electronic or analog, unless clearly already in the public domain.

49 APPENDIX I: METHODS FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

MAPPING ANALYSIS structure. The model incorporates functions for growth, aging, natural mortality, fishing mortality, Each o f the management altern atives encompass es fecundity (egg production), and animal movements. different areas and/or visitor use and access levels for the four management zones. A first step in evaluating The STOCaST model was used to simulate the impact the natural resource impacts of each alternative plan is of implementing the management alternatives on the to analyze the amount of area set aside for protection snapper, grouper, and grunt reef fish populations (as in conjunction with visitor carrying capacities (see well as hogfish) from Key West out to the Dry Tortu- table 1). The total area of each underwater habitat type gas (including the park and the Dry Tortugas Bank and by depth category is listed in table A2b (appendix G). Riley’s Hump). These families of reef fish were chosen Proportions of underwater habitat areas within research becaus e they are the most sought-after reef fish by both natural area zones are given in table A2c (appendix G). the recreational and commercial fisheries. A total of 19 species were simulated, including groupers (rock hind, One of the most important indicators of the health of graysby, coney, red hind, black, scamp, yellowfin, the coral reef system is the diversity of the reef fish yellowmouth, and red); snappers (mutton, gray, dog, community. Diversity measures of all fishes and of the lane, and yellowtail); and grunts (margate, tomtate, snapper-grouper-grunt complex, both within the park white, bluestriped; and hogfish). The population and for the entire Tortugas region, are given in table paramet ers for each o f these species are taken from A6. The proportions of diversity protected by various Ault et al. (1998) and Meester (2000). research natural area zones are also given. Sustaining greater diversity of the reef fish community provides The model was run 20 years into the future for each for a more pristine environment and greater alternative to access the impact of implementing each attractiveness for viewing by visitors. alternative on spawning stock biomass (SSB), yield in weight, and egg production of the stocks. Spawning The sampling effort conducted during 1999 provides a stock biomass is the biomass of all reproductively good baseline understanding of reef fish spatial abun- viable individuals in a stock, and egg production is the dance and size patterns in the park. Statistical models number of eggs produced by a stock in a year. The were developed to describe relationships between yield in weight is the total weight of the catch taken by species density and length distributions and habitat the fishing activity. STOCaST assumes no stock- (Meester 2000). Average fish densities (numbers per recruitment relationship, and therefore the results unit area) within habitat types were multiplied by habi- shown are to be considered minimal responses to the tat areas to estimate spatial abundance for a given impact of implementing research natural area zones. species. These spatial abundance maps were used as Not enough is known about the true form of the stock- initial population values in the simulation model recruitment relationship for reef fish, and the inclusion described below. of such a relationship in the model may produce overly optimistic results, depending on the form of the relationship chosen. Spatial Population Simulation Model The results are shown in figures B7, B9, and B11 in The testing of alternative management plans with the “ Impacts on Natural Resources” section and allow respect to fishing impacts for Dry Tortugas National for the evaluation of each alternative as to its impacts Park requires the use of a spatially and temporally on the maintenance of sustainable reef fish stocks dynamic population simulation model. If spatial under exploitation and to the fishing activity operating dynamics are not accounted for, the effective explora- in the Dry Tortugas region. The results are shown for tion of spatial and/or temporal alternatives is not the options described in figure B5 (appendix G), which allowed (Pelletier and Magal 1996). The model was shows the spatial extents and boundaries of NPS designed and built in the C++ programming language research natural areas and the sanctuary’s ecological to take advantage of its object-oriented capabilities. reserv es for altern atives C, D, and E, and for alterna- The resulting model is called the STOCaST (Spatial tive C without the sanctuary’s reserve (alternative C1), and Temporal Object-oriented Cohort-STructured) which is not an alternative that is discussed in this model, and is spatially composed of the subunit grid document. Simulations of alternative plans that structure described in Meester (2000). The population establish research natural areas (alternatives C, D, and is composed of a length- and time-based cohort E) presume that the research natural area would be Appendix I: Methods for Assessing Impacts on Natural Resources implemented in conjunction with the Florida Keys and analyzed using the Expert Choice decision support National Marine Sanctuary marine reserves in the software (Forman and Saaty 1999). adjacent waters of the Tortugas region. It is important to realize that the use of spatial closures (marine The model is set up to determine the best alternative reserves, research natural areas, etc.) will not produce for meeting the park’s objectives of sustaining a near- immediate results and will vary significantly by pristine environment. This is achieved by establishing species according to the level of fishing pressure a goal that the AHP model seeks to optimize with the exerted on each and each species’ movement following subcriteria: (1) maintain and protect natural characteristics and life span. Significant changes in ecological processes; (2) minimize human impacts; (3) population size and structure should be recognizable at establish monitoring system; and (4) provide approximately half the time of the species life span, management and research direction. This goal is and the results presented here are to be expected at one assessed by determining the impact of each year less than the species life span. The endpoints management alternative on criteria within four major (spawning stock biomass, yield in weight, and egg categories: (1) essential and unique habitats, (2) production) of the simulations are shown as a relative fisheries resources, (3) wildlife, and (4) environmental measure compared to alternative A, the status quo, setting. See table A4 for all criteria assessed within which receives a value o f 1.00. The fish are assumed to each o f these four categories. Each o f these criteria move in large home ranges, allowing for fish to cross may be impacted by a variety of invasive human uses boundaries between zones on a daily basis. (table A5), and several matrices are established that Equilibrium conditions, which occur at one year past describe the impact o f each invasive use on each the life span o f each species, are reach ed, and show criterion. Multiplying these matrices provides the what the comparative impacts o f each alternative will relative risk associated with each use and the be on the reef fish stock of interest. framework for determining long-term impacts on the resources of the park. The AHP model framework is given in table A7. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model T he hierarchical structure employed in this approach is T he analytical hierarchy process (AHP) model is a flexible and can be modified to incorporate dynamic method of breaking down a complex, unstructured circumstances or opinions of differing experts. situation into its component parts (Saaty 1986). These Comparative analyses were guided by information parts, or variables, are arranged into a hierarchi cal from the literature and ongoing studies, integrating the order, assigned numerical values using subjective primary factors reflecting environmental impact, and judgments on the relative importance of each variable, allowing the ranking of various policy alternatives. and synthesized to determine which variables have the The overall model results are shown in figure B13. highest priorities and should be acted upon to influence Sensitivity analyses (performance-type) were the outcome of the situation (Saaty et al. 1994). AHP employed to evaluate the effects of differing weighting procedu res allow resource manag ers to structure and schemes upon model outcomes. These analytic execute hundreds of quantitative and qualitative processes are iterative. T he model structures, data assessments simultaneously to evaluate alternatives matrices, and their decision outcomes will evolve with and rapidly calculate summary values (Schmoldt et al. increasing insight into the complex biological and 1994, Golden et al. 1989)). The analysis as to which socioeconomic attributes o f the park’s system. management alternative provides the best protection for the park’s resources is structured as an AHP model

51 TABLE A6: PERCENT OF REEF FISH DIVERSITY (TOTAL FISHES AND FISHES IN THE SNAPPER-GROUPER-GRUNT COMPLEX) PROTECTED BY A RESEARCH NATURAL AREA ZONE FOR DIFFER ENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES. Tortugas region values for alternatives D and E presume that the research natural area zone within the park would be implemented in conjunction with an research natural area/ecological reserve for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s surrounding waters.

Total Number Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: Case 4: Case 5: of Species Alternatives A Alternative C Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E & B without a sanctuary with a ecological reserve sanctuary ecological reserve Reef Fish Community Tortugas region 194 0.0 63.9 83.0 81.4 87.6 Park only 141 0.0 87.9 87.9 80.1 100.0

Snapper-Grouper-Grunt Tortugas region 35 0.0 77.1 94.3 82.9 94.3 Park only 28 0.0 96.4 96.4 78.6 100.0

TABLE A4: SUMMARY OF THE PARK’S AFFECTED NATURAL RESOURCES

(1) Essential and Unique Habitats (2) Fishery Resources corals and coral reefs, hardbottoms, sea grasses, sand islands exploited reef fish (snapper-grouper-grunt complex), exploited macroinvertebrates, unexploited reef resources, sharks and rays, pelagic species, baitfish, protected/end angered species (3) Wildlife Resources (4) Environmental Setting nesting birds, other migratory birds, sea turtles, marine mammals Soundscape, night-time lighting, water quality/pollution

TABLE A5: SUMMARY OF INVASIVE HUMAN USES THAT MIGHT IMPACT PARK’S NATURAL RESOURCES

Boating Hiking, walking Groundings (contact damage, fuel spills, etc.) and propeller damage Camping, picnicking Anchoring Wildlife watching, photography (from land, sea or air) Sewage and trash dumping, fuel leaks Seaplanes, aircraft Scuba diving, snorkeling, swimming Facilities, lighting Fishing TABLE A7: AHP MODEL STRUCTURE FOR THE PARK’S AFFEC TED NATURAL RESOURCES

Symbol Symbol GOAL: Define a preferred alternative for the national park (1) maintain and protect natural ecological processes (2) minimize human impacts. (3) establish monitoring system and identify threats. (4) provide management and research direction. Level 2 CRITERIA: Natural Resource Conditions: Sub-Criteria: (1) Fishery Resources : fishery (a) exploited groupers groupers (1a) spawning stock biomass ssb (b) exploited snappers snappers (1b) yield in weight Y w (c) exploited grunts grunts (1c) stock egg production eggs (d) exploited macroinvertebrat es (shrimp, lobster, conch) exp mi (1d) average size Lbar (e) unexploited reef fi sh resources (herbivores-butterflyfish, unexp rf damselfish, invertebrates, etc.) (f) sharks and rays sharks (g) pelagics (kingfi sh, mackerel, dolphinfish, billfish, tunas, etc.) exppel (h) baitfi sh baitfi sh (i) exceptional and protect ed resources (e.g., jewfi sh) protect (2) Essential & Unique Habitats: habitats (a) corals and coral reefs (gorgonions, sponges) corals (2a) percent cover and abundance %cover (b) hardbottoms (soft corals, sponges and algae) hardbot (2c) diversity diversit (c) seagrasses seagrass (d) sand sand (e) islands (7 of coral and sand) islands (3) Wildlife Resources: wildlife (a) nesting birds (sooty and noddy terns, fri gate birds) birds ne (3a) nests and pairs nests (b) other migratory birds birds mi (3b) animal abundance abund (c) marine turtles (green and loggerhead turtles) turtles (d) marine mammals mar mam (g) exceptional resources (e.g., Loggerhead Forest) wild er (h) endangered/threaten ed resources wild end (4) Other Natural Environments: environs (a) Natural Soundscape: sound (b) Night-time Lighting:lights (c) Water Quality:wq SELECTED REFERENCES

Alcala, A. C. Ault, J. S. and J. Luo 1988 “ Effects of Marine Reserves on Coral Reef 1998 “Coastal Bays to Coral Reefs: Systems Use of Fish Abundances and Yields of Philippine Scientific Data Visualization in Reef Fishery Coral Reefs.” Ambio 17:194–199. Management.” International Council for Alcala, A. C. and G. R. Russ Exploration of the Seas. ICES C.M. 1998/S:3. 1990 “ A Direct Test of the Effects of Protective Bennett, B. A. and C. G. Attwood Management on Abundance and Yield of 1991 “ Evidence for Recovery of a Surf-zone Fish Tropical Marine Resources.” J. Cons. Int. Assemblage following the Establishment of a Explor. Mer 46:40–47. Marine Reserve on the Southern Coast of Allard, M. W., M. M. Miyamoto, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. South Africa.” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Bol. Bolten, and B. Bowen 75:173–181. 1994 “Support for Natal Homing in Green Turtles Bertlesen, R. D. and J. H. Hunt from Mitochondrial DNA Sequences.” 1997 “Spiny Lobster Spawning Potential and Copeia 1994(1):34-41. Population Assessment: A Monitoring Allison, W. R. Program for the South Florida Region.” Final 1986 “Snorkler Damage to Coral Reefs in the Report, 2nd year. Maldive Islands.” Coral Reefs 15:215-218. Bohnsack, J. A. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the 1993 “Marine Reserves: They Enhance Fisheries, Army Reduce Conflicts, and Protect Resources.” 1999 “Rescuing an Endangered Ecosystem: The Oceanus 36(3):63–71. Plan to Restore America’s Everglades ” 1998 “ Application of Marine Reserves to Reef Available on Internet at Fisheries Management.” Australian Jour. www.evergl adesplan.org Ecol. 23(3):298–304. Attwood, C. G. and B. A. Bennett Bohnsack, J. A. and J. S. Ault 1994 “ Variation in Dispersal of Galjoen (Coracinus 1996 “Management Strategies to Conserve Marine capensis)(Teleostei: Coracinidae) from a Biodiversity.” Oceanography 9(1):73–82. Marine Reserve.” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: Bohnsack, J. A., D. E. Harper and D. B. McClellan 1247–57. 1994 “Fisheries Trends from Monroe County, Audubon, J. J. Florida.” Bull. Mar. Sci. 54(3):982–1018. 1926 “The Turtlers.” In Delineations of American Bohnsack, J. A. and D. E. McClellan Scenery and Character, edited by H. Hobart, 1998 “Summary of Dry Tortugas Research p. 194-202. G. A. Baker and Co., NY. Activities.” Report PRD –97/98-25 prepared Ault, J. S. and J. A. Bohnsack for National Oceanic and Atmospheric 1999 “Reef Fish Stock Assessment in Dry Tortugas Administration, National Marine Fisheries National Park and Adjacent Waters including Service, and SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.” Science Center) Miami, FL. NURC/UNCW (National Undersea Research Boyer, J. N. and R. D. Jones Center /University of North Carolina, 2000 “ Long-term Trends in the Water Quality of Wilmington) Report. Florida Bay (June 1989–June 1999). Found at Ault, J. S., J. A. Bohnsack and G. A. Meester Internet site http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork 1997 “Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Carr, M. H. and D. C. Reed Retrospective (1979–1995) Assessment of 1993 “Conceptual Issues Relevant to Marine Reef Fish and the Case for Protect ed Marine Harvest Refuges: Examples from T emperate Areas.” In Developing and Sustaining World Reef Fishes.” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Fisheries Resources: The State of Science and 50:2019–2028. Management, edited by D. A. Hancock, D. C. Chester, A. J. and G. W. Thayer Smith, A. Grant, and J. P. Beumer, pp. 415– 1990 “ Distribution of Spotted Seatrout (Cynoscion 425. 2nd World Fisheries Congress, Brisbane, nebulosus) and Gray Snapper (Lutjanus Australia. griseus) Juveniles in Seagrass Habitats of 1998 “ A Retrospective (1979–1996): Multispecies Western Florida Bay.” Bull. Mar. Sci. 46(2): Assessment of Coral Reef Fish Stocks in the 345–357. Florida Keys.” Fishery Bulletin 96(3):395– 414. Selected References

Clark, J. R., B. Cuasey, J. A. Bohnsack Fourqurean, J. W., M. J. Durako, and J. C. Zieman 1989 “Benefits from Coral Reef Protection: Looe 1999 “FKNMS Water Quality Protection Program: Key Reef, Florida.” In Coastal Zone 89: Seagrass Status and Trends Monitoring.” Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Prepared for the Environmental Protection Coastal and Ocean Management, Charleston, Agency. EPA Annual Report for 1998. July 11–14, 1989, edited by O. T. Magoon, H. Gifford, J. C. Converse, D. Miner, L. T. Tobin, and D. 1934 The Rehabilitation of the Floridan Keys Clark. New York, NY American Society of Books, Inc., NY. Civil Engineers. Ginsburg, R. N Cockrell, Wilburn A. 1953 “Beachrock in South Florida.” J. Sedim. 1993 “ Dry Tortugas Prehistoric Cultural Resources Petrol. 23(2):85–92. Potential” in Dry Tortugas National Park: Glenn, L. Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment. 1996 “ Orientation and Survival of Loggerhead Sea Pp. 63–95. Turtle Hatchlings (Caretta caretta) in the Conaway, James Nearsho re Environment.” M. S. thesis. 1999 “ A Jewel in the Dry Tortugas.” Smithsonian Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Magazine, vol. 30, no. 8, (pp. 124–134). Golden, B. L., P. T. Harker and E. A. Wasil Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, 1989 Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy and Edward T. LaRoe Process. Springer-Verl ag, NY. 1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Grimes, C. B. Habitats of the United States. Published by 1987 “Reproductive Biology of the Lutjanidae: A the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Review.” In Tropical Snappers and Wildlife Service, Offi ce o f Biological Groupers: Biology and Fisheries Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C. Management, edited by J. J. Polovina and S. Davis, D., and C. Tisdell Ralston, 239–294. Westview Press, Boulder. 1995 “Recreational Scuba-diving and Carrying CO. Capacity in Marine Protected Areas.” Ocean Harwell, M. A., J. F. Long, A. M. Bartuska, J. Gentile, & Coastal Management 26:19-40. C. C. Harwell, V. Myers, and J. C. Ogden Davis, G. E. 1996 “ Ecosystem Management to Achieve 1977 “ Anchor Damage to a Coral Reef on the Coast Ecological Sustainability: The Case of South of Florida.” Biol. Conserv. (11):29-34. Florida.” Environmental Management DeMartini, E. E. 20(4):497–521. 1993 “Modeling the Potential of Fishery Reserves Hawkins, J. P., and C. M. Roberts for Managing Pacific Coral Reef Fishes.” 1992 “ Effects of Recreational SCUBA Diving on Fish. Bull. 91:414–427. Forereef Slope Communities of Coral Reefs.” Dixon, J. A. and P. B. Sherman Biological Conservation 62:171–178. 1990 Economics of Protected Areas: A New Look Hoffmeister, J. E. at Benefits and Costs. Island Press, 1974 Land from the Sea: The Geologic Story of Washington, D.C. South Florida. University of Miami Press, Environmental Protection Agency Coral Gables, FL. 1999 “Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Holland, D. S. and R. J. Brazee Sources, Effects, and Solutions,” by W. L. 1996 “Marine Reserves for Fisheries Manage- Kruczynski. U.S. EPA 904-R-99-005. ment.” Marine Resource Economics, 11:157– FAU/FIU (Florida Atlantic University/Florida 171. International University) Center for Environmental and Hurley, Neil E. Urban Problems 1998 Lighthouses of the Dry Tortugas, an 1995 Economic Impact Study of Federal Interest Illustrated History, Historic Lighthouse Lands in South Florida. Prepared for Publishers, Aiea, HI. Everglad es National Park by Michele Knowlton, N. and J. C. Lang Edwards Correia, Research Associate, 1981 “ Evidence for Delayed Mortality in Principal Investigator. Hurricane-damaged Jamaican Staghorn Forman, E. H. and T. L. Saaty Corals.” Nature 294: 251–252 1999 Expert Choice: Decision Support Software, V9.0 User’s Manual. Pittsburg, PA.

55 SELECTED REFERENCES

Lauck, T., C. W. Clark, M. Mangel, and G. R. Munro Medio, D., R. F. G. Ormond, and M. Pearson 1998 “ Implementing the Precautionary Principle in 1997 “ Effects of Briefings on Rates of Damage to Fisheries Management through Marine Corals by Scuba Divers.” Biological Reserves.” Ecological Applications 8(1) Conservation 79:91–95. supplement, S72–S78. Meester, G. A. Lee, T. N., M. E. Clarke, E. Williams, A. F. Szmant, 2000 “ A Mathematical Programming and and T. Berger Simulation-based Approach to Determining 1994 Evolution of the Tortugas Gyre and Its Critical Factors in the Design of Effective Influence on the Recruitment in the Florida Marine Reserve Plans for Reef Fish.” Ph.D. Keys.” Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3):621– diss., University of Miami. 646. Meyer, J. L., E. T. Schultz, and G. S. Helfman Lee, T. N., E. Johns, D. Wilson, and E. Williams 1983 “Fish Schools: An Asset to Corals. Science 1999 “Site Characterization for the Tortugas 220:1047–1049. Region: Physical Oceanography and Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier Recruitment.” Report prepared for the 1995 “Sea Turtle Nesting Activity in the State of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Florida.” Florida Marine Institute. Publication the National Park Service. 52. Lindeman, K. C., T. N. Lee, W. D. Wilson, R. Claro, Miller, S. L., and D. W. Swanson and J. S. Ault 2000 “ NURC Assessments of Coral Reef 2000a “Transport of Larvae Originating in Resources in the Dry Tortugas.” National Southwest Cuba and the Dry Tortugas: Undersea Research Center Report. Evidence for Partial Retention in Grunts and National Oceani c and Atmospheric Administration Snappers.” In Proceedings of the. Gulf & 1996 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Caribbean Fisheries Institute, vol. 52, in Final Management Plan/Environmental press. Impact Statement, Volume II. Lindeman, K. C., R. Pugliese, G. T. Waugh, and J. S. National Oceani c and Atmospheric Administration and Ault National Marine Fisheries Service 2000b “ Developmental Patterns within a 1999 Our Living Oceans. NOAA/NMFS, Dept. of Multispecies Reef Fishery: Management Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS- Applications for Essential Fish Habitats and F/SPO-41. Government Printing Office, Marine Reserves.” Bulletin of Marine Washington, D. C. Science, in press. National Park Service Longley, W. H. and S. F. Hildebrand 1983a Historic Structure Report, Historical Data 1941 “Systematic Catalogue of the Fishes of Section, Fort Jefferson: 1846-1898, prepared Tortugas, Florida, with Observations on by Edwin C. Bearss. Denver Service Center, Color, Habits, and Local Distribution.” Paper. Denver, CO. Tortugas Lab., no. 34: 1983b General Management Plan / Development Lott, C. Concept Plan / Environmental Assessment. 1996 “ Nekton, Plankton and Oceanic In fluences,” Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. vol. 7. Site Characterization for the Florida 1993 Dry Tortugas National Park, Submerged Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Cultural Resources Assessment, edited by Environs. Farley Court Publishers, Zenda, Larry E. Murphy, Submerged Cultural WI. Resources Unit, Southwest Region, Santa Fe, Mah, A. M. and C. W. Stearn NM. NPS D-33 1986 “The Effect of Hurricane Allen on the Bellairs 1994 “Proposal for Inventory and Monitoring Fringing Feef, Barbados.” Coral Reefs 4: Programs: Dry Tortugas National Park.” 169–176 1995 “ Draft Dry Tortugas National Park Resource Manucy, Albert C. Management Plan.” 1999 “Pages from the Past, a Pictorial History of 1996 “ Dry Tortugas National Park Visitor Study, Fort Jefferson,” (Recompilation of a 1950 Summer 1995, Report 83,” by Glenn Gill. Portfolio), Florida National Parks and Visitor Services Project, Cooperative Park Monuments Association, Inc., Homestead, Studies Unit, University of Idaho. NPS D-36. Florida. 1997a “Plants of Dry Tortugas National Park. An Annotated List,” by R. G. Reimus and W. B. Robertson Jr.

56 Selected References

1997b “Scientific Studies on Dry Tortugas National Rouphael, T., and G. Inglis Park: An Annotated Bibliography,” by T. W. 1995 The Effects of Qualified SCUBA Divers on Schmidt and L. Pikula. NPS 97–1. Coral Reefs.” Coral Reef Centre Reef 1998 “Tortugas 2000 – Marine Mammals and Sea Research Centre Technical Report 4:1-39. Turtles.” NPS Report. Rouphael, T., and G. Inglis 1999 “ Loggerhead Key Historic District, National 1997 “ Impacts of Recreational SCUBA Diving at Register of Historic Places Registration Sites with Different Reef Topographies.” Form” (draft), prepared by Stuart Johnson and Biological Conservation 82:329–336. Jill K. Hanson, Southeast Regional Office, Russ, G. R. and A. C. Alcala Atlanta. 1989 “ Effects of Intense Fishing Pressure on an 2000 “ Dry Tortugas National Park – Submerged Assemblage of Coral Reef Fishes.” Mar. Cultural Resources Strategy,” prepared by Ecol. Prog. Ser. 56:13–27. Larry E. Murphy (NPS Submerged Cultural 1996a “ Do Marine Reserves Export Adult Fish Resources Center, Santa Fe) and Brenda Biomass? Evidence from Apo Island, Central Lanzendorf (Biscayne National Park). Philippines.” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 132:1–9. Neumann, C. J., B. R. Jarivinen, C. J. McAdie, and J. 1996b “Marine Reserves: Rates and Patterns of D. Elms Recovery and Decline o f Large Pred atory 1993 “Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Fish.” Ecological Applications 6(3):947–961. Ocean, 1871–1992.” National Weather Russ, G. R., A. C. Alcala, and A. S. Cabanban Service, National Climate Data Center in 1992 “Marine Reserves and Fisheries Management cooperation with the National Hurricane on Coral Reefs with Preliminary Modelling of Center, Coral Gables, FL. the Effects on Yield per Recruit.” Proc. Pelletier, D. and P. Magal Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium. 1996 “ Dynamics of a Migratory Population under Guam, 2:978–985. Different Fishing Effort Allocation Schemes Saaty, T . L. in T ime and Space.” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1986 “ Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic 53: 1186–1199. Hierarchy Process. Manag. Sci. 32(7):16 p. Plan Development Team of Southern Atlantic Fishery Saaty, T. L. and L. G. Vargas Management Council 1994 Decision Making in Economic, Political, 1990 “The Potential of Marine Fishery Reserves for Social, and Technological Environments. Reef Fish Management in the United States RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA Southern Atlantic.” NOAA Memo. Contrib. Samoilys, M. A. Number CRD/89-90/04. 1997 “Movement in a Large Predatory Fish: Coral Polacheck, T . Trout, Plectropomus leopardus (Pisces: 1990 “ Year Around Closed Areas as a Management Serranidae), on Heron Reef, Australia.” Tool.” Natural Resource Modeling 4(3):327– Coral Reefs 15:151–158. 354. Sargent, F. J., T. J. Leary, D. W. Crewz, and C. R. Porter, J. W. and O. W. Meier Kruer 1992 “ Quantification of Loss and Change in 1995 “Scarring of Florida’s Seagrasses: Floridian Reef Coral Populations. American Assessment and Management Options.” Zoology. 32:625–40. Florida Department of Environmental Porter, J. W., O. W. Meier, J. I. Tougas, and S. K. Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute Lewis Technical Report TR-1. 1994 “Modification of the South Florida Schmidt, T. W. and L. Pikula Hydroscape and Its Effect on Coral Reef 1997 “Scientific Studies on Dry Tortugas National Survival in the Florida Keys.” Bull. Ecol. Soc. Park: An Annotated Bibliography.” Atoll Am. Abst. Suppl. 75:184. Research Bulletin 449:1–113. Washington, Riegl, B., and B. Velimirov D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 1991 “ How Many Damaged Corals in Red Sea Schmidt, T. W., J. S. Ault, and J. A. Bohnsack Reef Systems? A Quantitative Survey.” 1999 “Site Characterization for the Dry Tortugas Hydrobiologia 216/217:249–56. Region: Fisheries and Essential Habitats.” Rogers, C. S., L. N. McLain, and W. R. Tobias NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- 1991 “ Effects of Hurricane Hugo (1989) on a Coral SEFSC-425. Reef in St. John, USVI.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 78: 189–199.

57 SELECTED REFERENCES

Schmitt, E. F., K. M. Sullivan-Sealy, and D. W. Feeley University of Florida 1999 “ Applications of the REEF Fish-Survey 1995 Monroe County: An Economic Overview, by Project for Monitoring Fishes in the Florida David Mulkey, Stephen Gran, and Chuck Keys National Marine Sanctuary.” Inter. Adams. Food and Resource Economics Conf. on Scientific. Aspects. of Coral Reef Department, Institute of Food and Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration. Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL. National Coral Reef Institute. Ft. Lauderdale, U.S. Department of Agri culture, Forest Service, FL. University of Georgia, and U.S. Department of Schmitt, E. F. and K. M. Sullivan Commerce 1996 “ Analysis of a Volunteer Method for 1996 Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors Collecting Fish Presence and Abundance Data to the Florida Keys/Key West, by Donald B. in the Florida Keys.” Bull. Mar. Sci. 59(2): K. English, Oubdoor Recreation and 404-416. Wilderness Assessment Group, Southern Schmoldt, D. L., D. L. Peterson, and D. G. Silsbee Forest Research Station, USDA– Forest 1994 “ Developing Inventory and Monitoring Service, Athens, GA; Warren Kries el, Programs Based on Multiple Objectives.” Department of Agricultural and Applied Environ. Manag. 18(5):707–727. Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Schomer, N. S. and R. D. Drew GA; and Vernon R. Leethworthy and Peter C. 1982 “ An Ecological Characterization of the Lower Wiley, Strategic Environmental Assessments Everglades, Florida Bay and the Florida Division, Office of Ocean Resources Keys.” U. S. Fish. & Wildlife Ser., OBS, Conservation and Assessment, National Washington, DC FWS/OBS-82/58.1. Ocean Service, National Oceani c and South Florida Regional Planning Council Atmospheric Administration, U. S. 1995 “Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Department of Commerce. Florida.” Hollywood, FL. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S Department of the Sport Fishing Institute Interior 1988 The Economic Impact of the Sport and 1979 Classificaiton of Wetlands and Deepwater Commercial Fisheries of the Florida Keys, by Habitats of the United States. See Cowardin David B. Rockland, Ph.D. Prepared for: et al. Everglades Protection Association, Florida Valiela, I., K. Foreman, M. LaMontagne, D. Hersh, J. Conservation Association, and Monroe Costa, P. Peckol, B. DeMeo-Anderson, C. D’Avanzo, County Industrial Development Authority. M. Babione, C. H. Sham, and K. Lajtha State of Florida, Department of Environmental 1992 “Couplings of Watersheds and Coastal Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Office of Waters: Sources and Consequences of Park Planning Nutrient Enrichment in Waquoit Bay, 1994 Outdoor Recreation in Florida – 1994, A Massachussetts.” Estuaries 15:443–457. Comprehensive Program for Meeting Voss, G. Florida’s Outdoor Recreation Needs. 1988 Coral Reefs of Florida. Pineapple Press, Inc. Tallahassee, Florida. Sarasota, FL. Tilmant, James T. Wulff, J. L. 1989 “ A History and an Overview of Recent 1995 “ Effects of a Hurricane on Survival and Trends in the Fisheries of Florida Bay.” Orientation of Large Erect Coral Reef Bulletin of Marine Science, 44(1): pp. 3–33. Sponges.” Coral Reefs 14: 55–61.

58 PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

NPS PREPARERS Skip Snow, Wildlife Biologist William Fay, Chief of Concessions Linda Dahl, Job Captain, Everglades and Dry Tortugas Bob Howard, Management Assistant National Parks, former Section Lead er for Cherry Payne, Chief of Interpretation Community Planning, Denver Service Center Mike Jester, Chief, Facilities Management John Hoesterey, former Project Manager, Denver Tom Schmidt, Marine Biologist Service Center Paul Taylor, Supervisory Park Ranger, Margaret DeLaura, Community Planner, Denver Linda Vanaman, Captain, MV Activa Service Center Mark Foster, former Maintenance Supervisor Laurie Domler, Community Planner, formerly Denver Bob Johnson, Director, South Florida Natural Service Center Resource Center Terry Goodrich, Chief of Planning, Washington Office Reed Detring, fomer Chief, Visitor Protection and Concessions Program Center Resource Management Miki Stuebe, Landscape Architect, formerly Denver Paul Stoehr, former Chief, Facilities Management Service Center Neal DeJong, former Chief, Interpretation Steve Whissen, Cultural Resource Specialist, Denver Roberta D’Amico, former Chief, Interpret ation Service Center Henry Benedetti, Chief of Concessions Management, Southeast Regional Office, former Chief of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Concessions, Everglades and Dry Tortugas Billy Causey, Superintendent Sarah Bransom, former Section Leader for Natural Ben Haskell, Research Coordinator Resources, Denver Service Center Joanne Delan ey, Research Interpret er Christy Fischer, Writer/Editor, Denver Service Center Dave Kreger, Natural Resource Specialist, Denver Service Center CONSULTANTS Frank Willis, Cultural Resource Specialist, Denver Service Center Warren Brown, Program Manager, Park Planning and Larry Murphy, Chief of Submerged Resources Center, Special Studies, NPS Washington Office Santa Fe, New Mexico Stuart Johnson, Chief of Planning, NPS Southeast Brenda Lazendorf, Associate Science Coordinator, Regional Office Submerged Resources Center, Santa Fe, New University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Mexico Atmospheric Science Jerald S. Ault Everglades/Dry Tortugas National Parks Geo ffrey A. Meester Dick Ring, Superintendent (plan start –August 2000) Jiangang Luo Maureen Finnerty, Superintendent (August 2000–plan Steven G. Smith completion) Kenyon C. Lindeman Larry Belli, Deputy Superintendent Gary Davis, Senior Scientist, Channel Islands National Brien Culhane, Chief, Ecosystem Planning and Park Compliance Dr. Bill Robertson, Research Biologist, Everglades Robert Brock, Supervisory Marine Biologist National Park INDEX

Activa, 51, 155, 157 Garden Key, 6, 10, 34, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, Broward, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149 54, 57, 59, 60, 64, 66, 70, 74, 75, 79, 84, 85, commercial use authorization (CUA), 34, 35, 44, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 105, 108, 129, 133, 45, 53, 58, 59, 64, 70, 73, 74, 79, 82, 83, 90, 138, 139, 140, 142, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 95, 109, 150, 151, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 157, 158, 182, 185, 187, 191, 192, 194, 195, 222, 226, 227, 229, 231, 234, 235 197, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, concession contract, 34, 35, 44, 72, 73, 81, 82, 209, 210, 211, 212, 225, 227, 229, 234, 235, 90, 95, 111, 150, 217, 227, 229, 231, 232, 230, 231 230, 233 incidental business permit, 35, 150 coral, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 28, 30, Key West, 26, 27, 48, 50, 51, 54, 57, 60, 71, 74, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 57, 59, 60, 79, 80, 83, 89, 92, 93, 94, 108, 109, 110, 118, 70, 72, 76, 79, 81, 85, 90, 93, 99, 102, 118, 134, 142, 144, 146, 149, 151, 152, 155, 157, 119, 121, 123, 129, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 164, 166, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 142, 145, 154, 156, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 209, 211, 213, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 169, 170, 174, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 202, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 236, 237, 242, 243, 217, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 238, 239, 240, 217, 229, 230, 231, 233, 235 233, 235 CUA See commercial use authorization Loggerhead Key, 6, 10, 11, 12, 22, 34, 36, 43, Dade, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 221 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 59, 66, 73, 75, 82, 85, Dry Tortugas National Park, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 89, 93, 133, 137, 140, 142, 153, 154, 155, 16, 20, 28, 29, 30, 34, 49, 50, 52, 64, 112, 156, 157, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 198, 219, 118, 129, 133, 134, 144, 150, 153, 163, 236, 223, 229 217, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 237 marine mammals, 104, 118, 133, 168, 170, 171, ecological reserve, 28, 37, 51, 66, 75, 85, 93, 182, 184, 187 163, 170, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 206, 209, marine protected area, 20, 37, 163 212, 218, 220, 221, 223, 236 monitoring, 14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 37, 43, 45, endangered, See threaten ed, rare, and 46, 50, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, endangered species 82, 84, 90, 91, 93, 97, 100, 112, 113, 133, Everglades National Park, 30, 58, 64, 118, 142, 134, 137, 150, 153, 155, 171, 188, 190, 191, 145, 150, 224, 225 193, 195, 197, 203, 204, 205, 208, 224, 225, ferry, 44, 48, 50, 72, 73, 81, 82, 97, 111, 142, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 236, 242, 143, 156, 157, 200, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 243, 219, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 210, 211, 216, 217, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, Monroe, 26, 27, 30, 132, 144, 145, 146, 147, 230, 233, 234, 235 148, 149, 150, 207, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, fishery/fisheries, 7, 13, 28, 37, 38, 57, 72, 74, 81, 220, 221, 244, 221, 235 83, 101, 102, 114, 118, 129, 155, 163, 164, mooring buoy, 14, 41, 42, 58, 60, 64, 71, 72, 73, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 186, 188, 217, 235, 75, 80, 81, 82, 89, 90, 91, 111, 137, 155, 165, 236, 237 166, 174, 183, 186, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 28, 29, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 223, 229, 230 48, 51, 66, 75, 85, 93 94, 112, 114, 118, 129, permit/permit system, 14, 19, 24, 31, 35, 42, 57, 134, 145, 163, 170, 176, 178, 180, 182, 183, 58, 66, 70, 71, 74, 75, 79, 80, 83, 86, 95, 97, 185, 187, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 108, 150, 151, 156, 193, 195, 196, 205, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213, 218, 220, 221, 223, 236, 207, 208, 209, 213, 218, 229, 230 217, 236 rare, See threatened, rare, and endangered Fort Jefferson, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 22, 23, 36, 48, species 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 59, 66, 71, 73, 75, 80, 82, recreational fishermen, 108, 182, 184, 186, 204, 85, 89, 93, 106, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 206, 207, 209, 210, 213, 217, 218, 219 142, 153, 157, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, recreational fishing, 7, 13, 31, 40, 41, 48, 59, 70, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202, 205, 208, 211, 217, 79, 86, 95, 108, 109, 112, 156, 157, 199, 204, 219 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 234, 235, 224

60 Index research natural area, 19, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, submerged cultural resources, 5, 10, 11, 16, 22, 41, 42, 44, 45, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 36, 42, 49, 53, 71, 80, 93, 112, 156, 193, 194, 80, 82, 83, 85, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 195, 196, 233, 234, 219, 235 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 114, 163, 165, threatened, rare, and endangered species, 7, 10, 167, 170, 171, 174, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 11, 19, 21, 36, 37, 42, 51, 59, 70, 76, 85, 101, 187, 188, 193, 194, 196, 197, 199, 204, 206, 102, 112, 119, 132, 133, 155, 167, 171, 182, 207, 208, 209, 217, 218, 219, 220, 227, 228, 184, 187, 235, 237, 238, 239, 235 229, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, turtle, 7, 42, 53, 59, 67, 70, 76, 85, 92, 104, 105, 243, 223, 229, 230, 233, 235, 236, 237 132, 163, 168, 172, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, seaplane, 7, 44, 72, 81, 109, 139, 142, 143, 151, 237, 238, 239, 229 205, 208, 211, 217, 219, 220, 222, 233, 234 U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, 20, 28 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Wetlands, 20, 105, 133, 169, 171, 182, 185, 187 Force, 29, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, Windjammer, 137, 157 211, 213

61 62

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of li fe through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-41A December 2000 U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service