Absent Working Group members and affiliation:

• Park planners and managers met on March 30, 1999 to develop several alternatives based on National Park Service legislation and criteria. This is part of the required NEPA process, the lines drawn include a range from no-take of any kind to no change from present. A meeting the week of May 10 will review alternatives closely.
• National Parks are guided specifically by Congress in what they can do. The enabling legislation may be totally different than the mandates of the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
• The chief mandate of Dry Tortugas National Park is to "protect a pristine, intact coral reef ecosystem for the enjoyment of others". The Park mandate is very heavy on protection of fish and wildlife as compared to some other parks.
• The Department of the Interior (DOI) was one of the leaders in a discussion of marine reserves at the Coral Reef Task Force meeting in March. The DOI is looking at marine reserves as a possible management tool in the future.

• Andrew Kemmerer, regional Southeast Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), did not approve a portion of Amendment 16A which addresses several fish trap measures submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC). Several portions were approved, but the early phase out of fish traps in waters south of Naples was not approved.
• The NMFS operates under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Act created councils, including the GMFMC, made up of many state representatives and others selected by the Governor. These councils make management recommendations which are then brought to NMFS staff. Justifications for each recommendation must be given including providing biological and economic impact assessments. If overall impacts are negative, approval of any given recommendation may not be given.
• Mr. Kemmerer’s decision to not have a quickened phase out has nothing to do with how the NMFS feels about fish traps. Rather, is was that the impact information presented did not sufficiently make the case to approve the phase out measure. The biological impact analysis stated that aside from a geographical shift in effort, there is no expected direct biological benefit for this measure. Economic impact analyses stated that fish traps are highly regulated gear and that there would be an unnecessary burden on fishermen due to an early phase out. The decision by NMFS to not approve the early phase out was not meant to undermine the Sanctuary’s creation of an ecological reserve in the Tortugas area.
• The current Gulf of Mexico fish trap phase out will occur by February 7, 2007.
• If the GMFMC wants to address a new amendment on this issue, they need evidence to verify the problem. The next step in the process would involve proposing, once again, that fish traps be phased out. The proposal would then go to public hearings for comment. Once that is completed, it would be submitted to NMFS where it will be evaluated based on the biological and economic information provided.
• The FKNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council recently passed two motions. The first motion was that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection not issue any special licenses to allow collection of aquarium fish using fish traps; the second recommends to the new NMFS Regional Director and new Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the Southeast region that the use of fish traps in the vicinity of the proposed Tortugas Ecological Reserve be banned at the earliest date, specifically within 90 days of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve going into effect.
• Historically, national marine sanctuaries have prohibited fish traps in some areas. Since this issue is outside the FKNMS boundaries but affects Sanctuary resources, Billy Causey will follow through with the appropriate NOAA/NOS offices.
• Working Group members interested in the fish trap phase out issue are encouraged to follow through with the GMFMC.

• Phase One focuses on reserve design, and this is where we are now. At the May meeting, the Working Group will evaluate boundary alternatives using the established criteria and hopefully identify a recommended preferred alternative which would be presented to the Sanctuary Advisory Council at their June 15 meeting.
• The SAC will in turn vote on this and make a recommendation to NOAA and the State of Florida. The June and July meetings of the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council will include Tortugas 2000 updates.
• Because the new state Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission may be operating on a fiscal year basis, any changes to state regulations may not be implemented until July 1, 2000.
• Phase Two of the process (Sept./Oct. 1999) includes producing a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for public review and comment. This will describe the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the reserve and will include the preferred alternative.
• Phase Three involves revising the preferred alternative based on comments received. The reserve will be implemented and regulations in place by spring of the year 2000.
• There is not a formal role of the Working Group beyond the May meeting, other than commenting on the draft SEIS. There may be a role for this group between the draft and final SEIS.

• The Tortugas is truly an exciting area, oceanographically speaking. It represents a region at the crossroads of major local, North Atlantic and global ocean currents.
• The junction of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean circulation systems are at the Tortugas. It is also an extension of the Florida Keys area and a junction between the two shelf environments of the Keys and the Gulf. Topography controls flow through these channels. Gyres are formed just offshore of the Tortugas due to shelf topography.
• Eddies in the Tortugas get compressed and accelerated through the Florida Straits. These eddies can entrap and retain larvae spawned in Tortugas and disperse them throughout the Keys as it moves along the Straits of Florida. The Tortugas gyre may persist for 3-4 months before being bumped into the Florida Current.
• Nutrients trapped below the thermocline can be uplifted by an upwelling event inside an eddy. Nutrients are brought to the photic zone and provide a source of nutrients for primary production, stimulating the entire food chain and providing food for larvae.
• Larvae are present inside the Tortugas eddy in large abundance in both early and late stages. These eddies tend to concentrate larvae, retaining both locally spawned larvae and bringing in larvae spawned outside the immediate area.
• Current events are primarily wind driven, with more flow to the south than the north and a net flow on the Southwest Florida shelf towards the Tortugas. The mean current flow along the Keys is westward, especially in the Tortugas, and except for the north Keys where it is a northern flow dominated by the Florida Current.
• The whole region of the Keys can sometimes communicate in terms of water exchange with the Tortugas. A series of large offshore eddies can retain drift buoys for long periods of time. This is a very dynamic area. The whole region communicates oceanically due to an offshore eddy system. The most important area for larval dispersal is the Tortugas area, because it is where the gyres sit for several months at a time. The Tortugas are the center of the circulation, thus influencing the entire Keys.
• Satellite imagery indicates that there is no seasonal pattern to the formation of eddies and gyres. It is random, but persistent in Tortugas area, in that they are there most of the time, and when they are not there it is only for a short time (1 month). Gyres and eddies are different sizes and intensities. Models could be developed to predict the dispersal of larvae by various typical Tortugas gyres and eddies.
• From an oceanographic perspective, it is not so significant specifically where in the Tortugas area that the Reserve is located. Biological factors would be more important for determining the exact appropriate location.

• Adult stages of fish are traditionally the focus of research. Fish start as transparent larvae, many are not mature for years. The early life history of these animals is important. They are hard to capture and identify.
• After floating or swimming in plankton, these larvae undergo "settlement" and metamorphose into what looks more like a fish and settle to bottom habitat. This is a period of extreme mortality. There is variation between species developmentally regarding when settlement tends to occur.
• The key issues for marine reserve design are the location of spawning sites and the mechanisms for larval transport.
• A project with the SAFMC, Dr. Jerry Ault, and commercial fishers has been undertaken to identify snapper aggregation/spawning sites near the Tortugas.
• Certain criteria had to be met for a site to be considered. 22 sites for 8 snapper species have tentatively been identified from Key West to the Tortugas.
• The importance of Riley’s Hump continues to come up for many species.
• There may be a substantial gyre off Southwest Cuba that acts to retain larvae. This area suggests that some species will not constantly be fed to us from Cuba.
• Otoliths in fish heads can be used to determine growth rates, and to identify a transition point that is associated with settlement, thus providing a measure of the time of planktonic larval duration.
• The results from one study shows that the mean of 6 snapper species is 33 days in planktonic duration. There may be some geographic variation in this.
• Available literature suggests that grunts, snapper, and groupers move out of the plankton in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks, respectively. In terms of Tom Lee’s information, the time periods of duration of oceanographic features generally exceed planktonic duration of the species we looked at. This would imply that juvenile fish developed from larvae spawned in the Tortugas would tend to settle in the area.
• Different species differ in the habitat requirements for settlement. Self-recruitment is more likely for some species than others.

• South Florida is a highly connected system in human and ecological use. Everglades restoration may have effects on the coral reef system. Natural physical system signals significantly cue the biological cycles of many organisms.
• The majority of biomass productivity is in the reef system. Animals move throughout the system. Spawning occurs on offshore banks, which facilitates transport of larvae inshore. Adults tend to migrate back offshore to reefs.
• Patterns of human use in Florida include a significant increase in recreational vessels. The fishing power of the commercial fleet has improved considerably, even though numbers of registered vessels are not going up. The main point is that all sectors are increasing.
• Our goal is to assess the coral reef fisheries community. In 1979, a visual fish census method was instituted for the entire length of Keys along the coral reef tract. Over 250 species of fishes have been seen. This is a more reliable method for assessing fish numbers and species than using only fisheries catch data.
• The relationship between locations where life stages occur is critical. Connections between habitat and depth are important. The utilization of habitats along with life history strategy are important to analyze together.
• Based on 1998 survey results, and the minimum spawning potential ratio, which is set at 30%, many species of grunts, groupers, and snappers are below the federal threshold used to indicate overfishing. This provides evidence of significant overfishing.
• The trends seen in results from the visual census surveys are similar to those seen in commercial catch.
• Two major issues are the protection of habitats critical to sustainability of stock, and that a minimum amount of fish biomass is needed to get any kind of recruitment.

• Contractors Tom Murray and Manoj Shivlani used saltwater products licenses to identify the commercial fishing population in the Tortugas region. There are approximately 100 commercial fishers operating in this area.
• The data presented are from 60 of the 100 fishers. These are representative of the overall distribution of fishing in the Tortugas area. When you develop boundary alternatives, we can analyze the potential impacts of those alternatives on commercial and recreational fisheries.
• The data does not include information from activities inside of the Dry Tortugas National Park.
• Some relevant information from this data set includes:
  • 7300 person-days of non-consumptive diving for Tortugas Bank area for one year. This number is based on six operators. Private dive boats were not seen.
  • 1012 spearfishing person-days in the Tortugas Bank area.
  • 1728 days of recreational lobster fishing, which were concentrated on Tortugas Bank.
  • No private vessels were identified as recreational fishers.
  • Commercial lobster catch generated over $6 million in 1997, which is 30% of the total Tortugas fishery. Our survey included 22 lobsterfishermen.
  • Shrimp comprises over 68% of the total value of what comes out of the Tortugas fishery.
• Non-consumptive use values represent a significant economic contribution in comparison to these other industries. In terms of qualitative benefit this is a major point.

• A bulleted list of criteria was developed at the last meeting. These were integrated and rewritten. It will be helpful for the group to reach some mutual understanding regarding the relative importance of these criteria.
• The suggestion is that the discussion of the "allowable activities" criterion be tabled until the next meeting, since it is not spatially or boundary- related but rather regulation-related.
• To allow the group to move forward with the boundary drafting exercise, it’s suggested that the group assume the existing management regulations for the Western Sambo Ecological Reserve as the default regulations when drafting boundary alternatives for the proposed Ecological Reserve, until the issue of "allowable activities" can be addressed at the next meeting.
• The Western Sambo Ecological Reserve regulations include "no take" of anything within the Reserve. Restrictions on diving activity include no touching, handling, or standing on coral (living or dead) in the area. Anchoring in any way that impacts coral is prohibited. Mooring buoys, when available, must be used. Research must be conducted under permit, and scientists are not allowed to engage in consumptive activities except on critical issues such as coral diseases.

• Sanctuary staff got together and developed several versions of boundaries. Each version, however, was based on just one of the criteria, except for one version that combined the fisheries sustainability and enforcement criteria. These are not mean to be viable alternatives or proposed boundaries. Rather, they are meant to demonstrate how the criteria could be applied in drafting boundary alternatives.
• The challenge of integrating the various criteria into boundary alternatives will be the task of the group today.

• We can use a simple mathematical matrix to evaluate and compare the relative importance of each criterion against each other.
• From this comparison, we can develop a criteria weighting profile that represents the combined views of the entire Working Group. This combined criteria weighting profile will be used to guide development of one set of boundary alternatives. In addition, the group will also work on developing two other criteria weighting profiles; one more protective and one less protective than the combined weighting profile for the whole group.
• In comparing one criterion against another, members need to consider whether it is much more important, more important, equally important, less important, or much less important than the other criterion.
• In making these comparisons, the assumption should be that the allowable activities will be the same as those for the Western Sambo Ecological Reserve.
• After the weighting profiles have been developed, the Working Group will divide up into four small mixed groups which will work on drafting a boundary alternatives for each of the three criteria weighting profiles. Consultation with constituents is encouraged during this drafting process. Small groups that reach agreement on their versions of the three draft boundary alternatives will present them for consideration by the entire Working Group.
• The greater the agreement we come up with here in defining an alternative, the more likely it is that the Sanctuary Advisory Council and State of Florida will approve the Working Group’s recommendations. Getting Working Group members to Levels of Agreement in the 3-5 range is the goal and would constitute consensus.
• If anyone has disagreements they should definitely be voiced so the group can struggle with how to address them. If any member of the Working Group is at level one or two, the group will then have to decide how to proceed. Anyone in disagreement will be expected to explain why they disagree and to offer an alternative suggestion for how to deal with the situation. Working Group members also have the option to withdraw and not be considered a part of the decision-making process.
• If an agreement cannot be reached on a preferred alternative, the Working Group may decide to develop several alternatives covering a range of perspectives.
• This group can only work on developing recommendations for a proposed Ecological Reserve in the Tortugas area. The Tortugas area was designated by the Sanctuary’s Final Management Plan as the study area. A proposed Ecological Reserve in another location would require another entire Environmental Impact Statement process . The Working Group, however, is free to make boundary recommendations for an Ecological Reserve that extends beyond the Sanctuary boundaries.

• I am not here to argue for or against your reserve process. However, you need to know there is a large body of opinion that opposes this reserve adamantly and completely. We cannot in good conscious help in drafting boundaries for a reserve that we fundamentally oppose. We are not here to participate but to make our presence known, and to let you know that we are opposed to a reserve. There are 40 boats who fish the area, and these fishermen have asked me to represent their interests here today.

• This process seeks to reach agreement, and in doing so to addressing each other’s concerns. Everyone will make an individual decision at the end of this process on how they will proceed, in supporting or opposing what is recommended. I ask that everyone try their hardest to listen to and address the concerns being voiced and to come up with a viable recommendation.

• The next meeting will address the topic of allowable activities for the reserve and will evaluate the boundary alternatives developed today.
• Ben Haskell will follow-up on designating alternates for all Working Group members. Due to the time invested in the process thus far and the importance of the next meeting, members are strongly encouraged to attend in person.

ACTION: May 22, 1999 Saturday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Working Group meeting, Harvey Government Center, Truman Ave., Key West.

Biodiversity & Habitat = 27%

Fisheries Sustainability = 26%

Enforcement & Compliance = 17%

Sufficient Size = 16%

Socioeconomic Impacts = 9%

Reference Area/Monitoring = 5%

• Remember that there was consensus that all of these criteria were important in the development of the reserve.
• One of the alternatives developed by your small groups should try to match this weighting profile.
• Small groups of members and their represented constituents caucused to formulate a "more protective" and a "less protective" criteria weighting profile.

Fisheries Sustainability = 25%

Socioeconomic Impacts = 25%

Enforcement/Compliance = 20%

Biodiversity/Habitat = 15%

Reference Area/Monitoring = 10%

Sufficient size = 5%

• These are all important criteria, no matter how they are ranked.

Sufficient Size = 50%

Fisheries Sustainability = 20%

Biodiversity/Habitat = 15%

Reference Area/Monitoring = 5%

Enforcement/Compliance = 5%

Socioeconomic Impacts = 5%

• Size was ranked so highly because it included so many of the other definitions of criteria.
• There are complex, overlapping relationships between the criteria.

• Each individual Working Group member will prepare your own initial draft alternative for each of the criteria weighting profiles (A, B, C) on a paper chart, and using the data provided in your workbook.
• Next the Group will break into small groups that will work together to try to reach agreement on a set of draft boundary alternatives that reflect the criteria weighting profiles A, B, and C. You are encouraged to take informal breaks when needed to consult with your constituents or others who are present.
• Try to base your alternatives on the information and data provided in your notebooks as much as possible. Try to use the data layers as justification for each alternative you develop. Also use the definitions of the criteria you developed earlier.
• The small groups will select someone to present their suggested alternatives to the entire group this afternoon. If you cannot reach agreement in your small groups, your group will have nothing to present this afternoon. We are trying to get to level 3 or higher in agreement.

#1: Dave, Nick, Fran, Tony, Ben

#2: Erich, Peter, Dan, Don K., Joe

#3: Felicia, Don D., Russ, Alex, Robert

#4: Debra, Bruce, Andy, Jim, Richard

• The quality of the dialogue, the working together, and the sharing of information back and forth, was impressive in the small group work.
• Present your group’s alternative, clarifying reasons but not debating why boundaries were placed where they were. Start with draft alternative "A" since this was the Working Group’s combined criteria weighting profile.

• We tried to get as much input from all the various users of the area to draft this alternative.
• We tried to maintain a rectangular shape for ease of enforcement. The map is color coded based on who has jurisdiction in each area now.
• The total size if all jurisdictions are included is approximately 165 square miles.
• This represents all habitats we know of including shallow water reefs and seagrass in the Dry Tortugas National Park, the north part of Tortugas Bank, the deep water reefs of Sherwood Forest, and provides buffer for shrimping areas.
• Park Service boundary markers would help people determine where they area relative to the lines of the reserve.
• Riley’s Hump is agreed to be important to all, and therefore needs more protection and should be included.

• We employed a concept of two types of zones - one that would be immediate that is contiguous, and goes further south to capture deep shelf edge habitats. It includes a piece of Dry Tortugas National Park.
• The other type of zone are areas that have a ten year phase out. This includes rectangles south of Dry Tortugas National Park and the northern Bank. This options splits the Bank so the north edge is open to fishermen for 10 years. Sherwood Forest is not included in the immediate protection. There may be other tools to protect Sherwood Forest from bottom impacts.
• Our idea is to use a phased in option that would not affect people immediately but would produce a world-class reserve.

• Biodiversity and fisheries sustainability were the most important criteria and therefore the two driving factors.
• This option includes Sherwood Forest, Tortugas Bank, a few known spawning aggregation areas, an area on the west side of the Park, and Riley’s Hump. It includes some of the lobster fishery, but left out some reef fish areas.
• The bottom right corner was cut out to get group consensus as it would have impacted commercial fishers.

• It was interesting how our group evolved and how many tradeoffs came while we worked out an alternative. Our group did approach this from the standpoint of looking at other areas outside the FKNMS, but we recognized that ultimately the only area we had any jurisdiction over was within the FKNMS.

• Our group could not reach consensus on what we wanted, but did agree this was the least protective option.
• The option is 54 square miles total, and includes Sherwood Forest.

• This option also includes a phase in portion, which protects Riley’s Hump after 10 years. It also includes immediate closures of part of the Dry Tortugas National Park, and the southwestern portion of the Sanctuary and Tortugas Bank.
• The 10 year phase out is due to the age of fishermen there, as it gives people time to start planning.

• This option takes note of the fact that fishing sustainability and socioeconomic impacts were equal and were the highest criteria. Enforcement was next highest criteria, which drove us to make squares/rectangles.
• The option takes in the northern part of Tortugas Bank and Sherwood Forest.

• The flats west and north of the Dry Tortugas National Park are taken in as part of this option, but we gave up areas south of the park that were in the previous option.

• This option is relatively similar to our midrange proposal but adds in Gulf Council jurisdiction to bring in Riley’s Hump.
• Total area is about 178 square miles.

• All members of our group agreed this was the most protective option.

• This option is very heavily weighted on size. It captures all reported spawning sites, beginning at Riley’s Hump and containing all of the Dry Tortugas National Park. Boundaries continue on to the Exclusive Economic Zone.

• This option takes it all in. Our group did save a small piece for lobster fishing.

ACTION: The commonalties and significant differences between all 4 maps will be clearer once entered into GIS by FKNMS staff. This will be produced prior to the May Working Group meeting.

• Between now and the next meeting, each Working Group member should do some creative thinking of their own about what you would see as a viable alternative for integrating these options.
• At the next meeting we will address allowable activities, and will try to get a version of each of these three criteria options.
• Reaching a preferred alternative through consensus, despite its difficulty, will send a very powerful message since this group represents many diverse constituencies.
• Continue to use the Working Group interactive website to communicate with other Working Group members.

ACTION: Ben Richards will notify all Working Group members how to post messages to the web board so all Working Group members can read posted messages. The invitation and instructions on how to join the list-server will also be re-sent to all Working Group members. Don Kincaid is a new Working Group member, replacing Vicki Weeks, and may be contacted at <donovan@flakeysol.com>.