Item B1 B.1
G BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe � "1 Mayor Sylvia Murphy,District 5
The Florida Keys l'U � � Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage,District 1
�pw° Michelle Coldiron,District 2
Heather Carruthers,District 3
David Rice,District 4
County Commission Meeting
September 5, 2019
Agenda Item Number: B.1
Agenda Item Summary #5920
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: BOCC District 2
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Katherine Atkins (305) 292-4512
3;00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation by Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Superintendent Sarah Fangman about the sanctuary's proposed Restoration Blueprint.
ITEM BACKGROUND: With the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary increasingly under
threat from increasing ocean temperatures and human interaction, sanctuary officials are proposing a
Restoration Blueprint that embodies what has been learned from nearly 30 years of research,
technical experience and local community involvement.
The Restoration Blueprint is scheduled for release online on Aug. 20, 2019. Information sessions are
planned throughout the Keys and South Florida from September to November with an open public
comment period for the blueprint through Jan. 31, 2020.
This is NOAA's first comprehensive review of the sanctuary's boundary, marine zones, regulations
and management plan. It was triggered by the 2011 Condition Report(attached)which found the
natural resources in decline.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
8/21/19 (M3) Board continued this item to a BOCC Special Meeting to be called by the Mayor to
be held 9/5/19 in Key West, FL at 3:00 PM or as soon thereafter as may be heard.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DOCUMENTATION:
Restoration Blueprint infographic
Packet Pg. 3
B.1
Blueprint Infographic website
More about FKNMS
2011 Condition Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: n/a
Expiration Date: n/a
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing: If yes, amount:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
None
REVIEWED BY:
Michelle Coldiron Completed 08/06/2019 9:41 AM
Bob Shillinger Completed 08/06/2019 9:52 AM
Kathy Peters Completed 08/06/2019 11:21 AM
Board of County Commissioners Completed 08/21/2019 9:00 AM
Packet Pg.4
m a`
V
a
a
rj ' fwiiilr l�q J� �
r
/ II
l
PI"
I
r
® d
-,�rIN
� IIIIV
W
W "� iCo
t mmu uuuuuuum m
li "q i "� ': Illli� i uuuuuuum IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
�w�y � m� N uuuIllVuuu�
" U�� umi m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII������
m011 mllllmuu� pi �������q
a IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIII
"q� "�q mmmmmi mi
+N� "Iq'a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIIIIIIII
tiq
m
�� Illlllllll���iiillllllllllu w Il uu
; . ° uuuuuuu
IIIII"mi°°°°' I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � I �m�mmm'
um mmmmm CA
IIIIIII VuudllVc
u� is muall
cc
o5
� ��� ;� II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ���������������������� �"� �" 0 7 �',��
4r
� ���� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �'''
I.
� ium IIII
Z �� � 0000lllll
W �, e morn ��� IIIIIIIII "
" ""ruwugw
cz
�r
III uoiu�
/J V m "
li 1 1
Li
C + "' CC)
Ciyj
Q q.. "qi o o.ii •', IIIIIII I IIIIIII
U It
Lu
o
L 4*
16
cn
cc ci IS E
0 C*
1111k LU
= .2
2
35
CA
E
..........
c LIC
ou
Lf
a) 0 1
Ca
0
C.2 CD
E
ej� WS
, li
lo,
IIII
1 11
,
CM111111611111 I's
CD u
10
6W
10
COO)
ll u
CIIII
LA- i%8N
L.6.
�s
L" 610
LA- :11P
0 �:D
,�°ill
COO)
VQ
�4�I1
1jiP
w Rt
LLl
-R 1
m U
o
� o
ONOME
H o
w
V
� t x
Q
H vi
0
No
� o
U �
' o
o
� z
V \
v�
4�
i
� � d
O �
Z � }
N �
� Q
O.0
� ry
LL � �
y n.
y
o 7
N E O
Q� C .EUU
O � 0O � N
O
N
,. ce N `�
CL
4� z QL
41
O
S •� D
= Q 0
,ham."'Ili.
C�
�t
4�
e
Zjxc
A '
a-
O
L`
Now
O � N
O o = o
W 4— U .�
._ � � E �
._ ° ° ._
� N t � t �
L L �
o _ .> LL. � � o
� — U
m N O H .� O Q)
QL
c c = _ L � a� O o
o N •—
E - 0)_ E
H E _ E O
•i 4- vo _ 'o E � O � �
O ^ � � '> � O � � � N
I cm 0 V
�go o �
U E
(1) O
H c o 0
i
0
O o �
•— O
H
� N
'> >
•- O
O �.
N
V °
V
. .. W
l E OD
O N
a� G
a
;;-' O
N C
V .i • � u
•— O o
o
E LL O
U
O s
N
} O a
O O
V =
LU
Vl
U
n
O
N
`�Y V
A �
1 t
I
55 ly�l 1
O }
L
O
\L
- LU
�L
U
D a)
O
O .o
LL
O o
LL
O
Z
�y7,
Z o
0 C4 j
OW
EJ Ix
VJ I
8
L
V � CL
o }
CL
� V
V
U 4 C 4
O N eu
2
CL
� �
444
Eto0)
to (u
�
a)L (a -0
co cn •• 0
N • O
C ti N
U E \O cn
L L U)
O'
cu
_ 2
L� ,
0
'Q^ � •
V J U) L`^
W W cm
cn L� • W
W L 0 >0000
cu
J (a � 06 a) a)
> .�
O N (1U
� W
V � •
•= O
� OC
> O L },
._ * L
Uca CU �
c� A �
•� o
� N
a
I'
s
i f
l7
� N
+ N p
Ln
O = 0O
LU
_ : .v E
V c E o QL
D U
p o D CDc)
HUo U CD0 CD o p
.� LO L CD
- n
= Q
E
E }
u 1w
U
N
i
y.
N
0
C
' Q
� � L
� � U
.�
o Q r O Q
Q)
O Q � N
C,5
4� o 0 3
H �p 0 i U � � o �
o o
�_ D �
_ > � C
o i 0 0 i 0 0
z m V)
CL
a a
n1 �
W Q
} w
.O
� O O
V � O �
O
H
CL
x
W
i
D O
O
m }
� O
}
D ,>
V
O o
H V
4
� y
Q
O O
O
U
Ao
AI
Z2 O }
V E 1
= Q O
H
1^ o,
I
�u
M
0
A L
O
�w
O
N •-
4� �
4�
O O
U �
O O
O O
Q
O O
O
O
W
V O
O
W
Y:
W
Z
O • O
Q } O
O o
Z
U , o
O a) Q 0 •
_ O N Q
O Q O V)
� U O �• 7C)
0 U
4� O
z
y O O -, o
> O
O O
N E •x
V, ••
OF
Q � _
w -
' 0 O
C
EZ
i
M
J
oil
•� N
� a
O
U Q
O °
N
n
Q
•
x
•
1
U � � o
1 O
1 uu
•
1 •
• 1
• 1
1
1
•
1 •
1 •
•
• 1
d
C
O
d]
KU
CL-
(U LL
L Qy aui
4 LO G
n
cn
Q H �
4�
H
i
CL
i
V
_ � 07
Con S
102
°
N a1 t
4-
oCL
•- N U
� O
d
0
C
(D W
C CL
d "} G
o ' L: E
cn
c
i
L
i
CL
� T
v
� a
W �
H o
}
ml
N Q o
O W
N
a
0
N
U
•
I
try
h
Q
O
•- � ifs
7
41
O
i U
C
CL }
O q
N
V
L � Nil:
� 0
02 o
IV Q
= o 'Q
NID
0 LOt
to a C E
>
L
O }
Lu U
� � O
Q � �
_ •x •O
O � >
� O
0 cn •in ,
O
} N
N U
O � O
N _
N
N
O N
y
N
N
C -
N �
-he N
m p O
O �
O
•� m
y
� p O
W
N
o C
y D-
V) O
U C
O N
OL N
u
N � �
H '
_ � s
IV
(D � y
O 0 0 p
) a1
•i O O
a� Q
w °
O
/O%,
tJ, L
� O
< Z
N
n l C
Q] Q M
o Q X N N
-0 O
IL � U C
IL a
cn
H �
�
CIO N �.
IY � Nv
-T
r °97
J �
_ N
O
i L
0 O IL
06
� 7C) _ -
_ ,..
O QL
Z .�
Q
4� o
Qn
� +� .
� N
i
4�'
• '4
•
e\
• •
� � � � � . 3
•
E �,
� z
�_ �
•
o �
y
b
d ` ] }
• m � @ �
a
? + � s p.
� i � ��
� � i i;
� W � i ii i
z � �;x�
o � �;
• � .l ¢ � w,
, .
• � � -��
a p ` s
• � � � O
� � z
z
O � � N
r
1 � H � <a
z ¢ � ��
• O N�
• ¢ ( � � � 8�
z j " ri
� � l
• O z 3 Q �� '��� �� r�g�,
� ,�- � s � O
H
O
H CN
O
O
CN
0 0 N i
.�
0
} Y H m LL m D
� O
(D ( O
I(D (D (D E E
O 0 0 0 U U U U O,
U U U L Q
CN
T I O O O 0
a) a) (D (DE (DE a
E E
cn• U U
Q
T! 0) 0) 0)
_ E E E
U U c C) _y
O O O c O O c
- NNN N NU UI U
co co co co co 0—
O O O
�, o 0 0 �, o O
> > I > CL
Q Q L- L- Q } O
O 0 o o �, _
ca ca V
V C 0 0
a a a a a co
� O Q
O N o 0 V }
H o a- a- `O °° L V •—
.� N ~ N (D (D
� N N (DE E
(D N -0 -0 � (D (D
01 Q Q O O O > U >
Q (n (n O 0 0 z 0 C H
L
O �
Q O
0 CD 0
o� z
CN
V � o
_ O
} O a�
t c
W
9
iya
1 � Y
4
y' Rig
r
L a r
rr i
1.
i��
6I
September 5, 2019 —BOCC Special Meeting, Key West
RE: FI Keys National Marine Sanctuary Restoration Blueprint/Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Aug 2019 (
https://nmsfloridakeys.blob.core.windows.net/floridakeys-prod/media/blueprint/deis-fknms-re'st-orqtion-blueprint.pdf )
Dear Commissioners:
In review of the above referenced document I strongly oppose the current wording (under Alternative
3/preferred) proposing to restrict user access in Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key reefs.
The currently proposed wording ("restrict users" "to blue star operators") would prohibit access to these
three reefs by the general public, as "a restriction limiting access to" excludes all others unless otherwise
specified.
Please see the following language in the referenced document numerated page 51 (aka; pdf page 81):
Sanctuary preservation areas (Alternative 3, preferred)A total of 26 SPAs are proposed(seven
additional compared to the no action alternative and one more than Alternative 2). Differences in
regulations from Alternative 2 include three SPA (Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key) that would be
limited use areas, accessible by Blue Star Dive Operators only(see Section 3.4.5).
Please see the following language in the referenced document numerated page 60 (aka; pdf page 90),
paragraphs 2 and 3:
NOAA is proposing to limit the levels of use within a select number of SPAs. The areas proposed would
be Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key SPAs. These sites include areas within each of the central regions
of the Florida Keys: Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys.
This proposal is based on increasing levels of overall use and in some areas, increasing concentrated
uses that could impact both the condition of sanctuary resources and the user experience. To address
these concerns, NOAA proposes to restrict the overall numbers of users that can access these areas at
any one time. In Alternative 3, NOAA proposes to:
restrict user access in Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key sanctuary preservation areas to Blue Start
dive/snorkel operators.
In conjunction with this proposed regulation, NOAA would use data from the 2017 FWCAerial
Overflight User Survey, other data sources, and input from the public and user groups to determine if
the proposed SPAs are the best sites to test this management approach. NOAA would consider
innovative approaches to managing concentrated uses in the sanctuary including limiting access to Blue
Star dive/snorkel operators only.
As currently worded, "restrict user access in Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key sanctuary preservation
areas to Blue Start dive/snorkel operators"would preclude the general public from accessing Sombrero
Reef or the other reefs as mentioned.
This public exclusion is unmistakable based upon the clear language evident by inspection of the plain and
literal words as written, which limits access to only those specified.
IF the intent was to selectively limit the type of commercial dive/snorkel operators on these reefs, then
clarification is needed, as the language in its' current state "restrict users" "to blue star operators". As
written, this language excludes all others, including the general public, from accessing these three reefs.
i.e. "a restriction limiting to" excludes all others unless otherwise specified.
IF this was an error in wording, and if this was only meant to restrict the type of commercial operator, then a
suggested language change might read (changes are capitalized):
Restrict COMMERCIAL user access in Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key sanctuary preservation areas
to Blue Start dive/snorkel operators. IN NO WAY IS THIS PROPOSED LIMITED-USE PROGRAM INTENDED
TO LIMIT OR EXCLUDE THE PRIVATE BOAT OWNER AND HIS/HER PASSANGERS FROM ACCESS TO
CARYSFORT, SOMBRERO OR SAND KEY.
While I appreciate the Sanctuary's concern for the health of our marine system, particularly our reefs, I
caution the Sanctuary to carefully address the true cause of this "over-use" issue.
The tourist related commercial dive/snorkel industry responsible for dumping hundreds of tourists
each day on our reefs is the "concentrated use/over-use" problem; not the locals who've snorkeled
and dove our waters and reefs for decades.
As the Sanctuary seeks to undertake "an experiment in controlling access to our reefs" (per Free Press article
referenced below) and "managing concentrated usage" (see above ref. doc.), it should not be the local who
grew up here snorkeling/diving who the Sanctuary now seeks to preclude.
This proposed access prohibition negatively impacts the local residents of Key Largo, Marathon through Big
Pine, and Key West, by eliminating access to their local iconic dive/snorkel spots. I respectfully urge the
BOCC to take a position on this to ensure continued access to these local reefs by our local residents.
And I urge the Sanctuary to make a careful re-write of the language on the proposed limited-use program
restricting user access to Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key to specifically allow continued access to these
reefs by the local residents/the private boat owner.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Beth
Beth Ramsay-Vickrey
2035 Bahia Shores Rd.
No Name Key, FL 33043
keysdanes@gmail.com
FREE PRESS, VOLUME 33, NO. 38, Dated August 28, 2019
SANCTUARY PROPOSES MORE PROTECTED AREAS
An experiment in controlling human "carrying capacity"has been floated for Carysfort Reef off Key Largo, Sombrero
Reef off Marathon and Sand Key off Key West. "Overuse has led to degradation of those habitats. At some point it will
exceed the ability of the systems to recover,"Bruckner said. "It's a challenge to say who can go there and who can't.
We have to think about how to do this. ... The sanctuary is really big and really complex."
( see https://keysnews.com/wp-content/themes/keysnews/assets/pdf/special-
sections/FLK%20Free%20Press.pdf?timestamp=1566950400 )
y , ,P z. t y.yj S. a�di. ,
'' f;
6 I • •
, ..,,.7.,,,02, ,d0,011000y_00 •- ;-..,k, -
, „, , , .—— , ,, OP? , t''T.: .
..
„
Mtrg . +r` *.1y
ys , i hitrr ) S j C� _ t4YS:0=►.r '' Vim, t ..%: 41 r
Wty y "�1 +~
7
K ,:t y1,
9•
0
cL s" a
M� R;:r
!J r-
o `. i
x
_ 9 }
a>Q
t
C
,co 0 L.
co 0
J
c yr< „
co y •
C W , t{
U
0 �"r.
d C
o 0
7.1 J ,+:if., :
v 4 �
�+i� . Y F+ it Y. `�".(` T'SS lu''�,� ,�. „TLFy i_.y.:.,.I.. "t Y .a-
Executive summary
The proposed new sanctuary preservation area adjacent to Long Key State Park and extending to the deep
reef at Tennessee Reef would protect large,contiguous,interconnected seagrass, shallow hardbottom,
aggregate patch reef, and deep,drowned spur-and-groove reef habitats.This sanctuary preservation area
would also provide a corridor for migration of different life stages of fishes from Florida Bay into the
Middle Keys.Protection of this area and application of existing and proposed new sanctuary preservation
area regulations would have a direct beneficial impact on the habitats and associated wildlife in this area
by avoiding potential adverse impacts to biological resources associated with human use of this area,
including anchoring.
jAlternative 3 would include implementation of a pilot limited use program at three sanctuary preservation
areas(Carysfort, Sombrero,and Sand Key). This would provide direct beneficial impact to resources in
these areas from a decreased level of concentrated and overall use.Easy access to recreational sites in the
Florida Keys has increased the burden on numerous habitats and the species with which they are
associated. Implementing the limited use sanctuary preservation areas proposed in this alternative would
also provide indirect beneficial impacts to biological resources by increasing the information available to
assess carrying capacity in sensitive areas and associated wildlife disturbances, impacts to species
diversity,abundance,and distribution,as well as direct impacts of overuse.
Channel Key Bank and Red Bay Bank would become two new conservation areas designed to protect
hardbottom and bank habitats,both of which are not well represented in the current zoning scheme.
Managing these new areas as conservation areas would have a direct beneficial impact on the associated
habitats and wildlife in this area by minimizing the interactions between human use and wildlife and
facilitating continued research and restoration activities in these areas. These proposed conservation areas
are associated with other new idle speed/no-wake wildlife management areas proposed in Alternative 3
that are intended to address impacts to benthic habitats and associated wildlife from vessel prop scarring.
Tortugas South Conservation Area would expand to encompass additional area to the west of the existing
marine zone boundary that includes ecological features associated with Riley's Hump and is known to
support multi-species fish spawning aggregations.This proposed modification would have a direct
beneficial impact on the associated habitats and wildlife using this area through the additional spatial
protections and applications of conservation area regulations.
Management plan.A revised management plan is included in Alternative 3,which is the same as is the
management plan included in alternatives 2 and 4. A brief summary is included above.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is primarily designed to protect large contiguous habitats and includes the most protective
regulations within individual marine zones. Specifically, Alternative 4 would expand the boundary to
include a distinct unit at Pulley Ridge for a total of 4,800 square miles and would add 31 wildlife
management areas,three sanctuary preservation areas,and seven conservation areas.
Alternative 4 includes the same proposed sanctuary-wide regulation changes as proposed for alternatives
2 and 3. It would update two existing regulations:one designed to provide additional protection to all
shorelines in the sanctuary,and one to provide FKNMS with additional permitting authority over live
rock aquaculture activities to manage potential impacts to sanctuary resources. Alternative 4 includes the
same proposed updated management plan as proposed for alternatives 2 and 3.
xxly
August 2019 FKNMS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
� r
Chapter 3: Description of alternatives
advisory council and the FKNMSPA,and to meet the policies and purposes of the national wildlife
refuges. Regulations for WMAs would still vary by zone and would include vessel restrictions on access,
anchoring,and speed to protect seagrass,hardbottom,and other critical shallow water habitats and
associated wildlife including fish,birds,and turtles.
----�j Sanctuary preservation areas (Alternative 3, preferred)
A total of 26 SPAs are proposed(seven additional compared to the no action alternative and one more
than Alternative 2). Differences in regulations from Alternative 2 include three SPA(Carysfort,
Sombrero,and Sand Key)that would be limited use areas,accessible by Blue Star Dive Operators only.
(see Section 3.4.5). All other proposed regulations included in Alternative 2 would apply.
Conservation areas (Alternative 3, preferred)
(In Alternative 1:No action these are included as ERs and SUAs.)
A total of eight conservation areas are proposed(two additional compared to the no action alternative,
which includes two ERs and 4 SUAs).There are no differences between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
for conservation areas.
Management areas (Alternative 3, preferred)
(In Alternative 1:No action these zones are referred to as EMAs.)
Alternative 3 would maintain all the proposed actions as outlined in Alternative 2 for Key Largo and
Looe Key management areas.
hi the national wildlife refuges,Alternative 3 would maintain the exception of a small area in Key West
National Wildlife Refuge where operation of personal watercraft would be permitted(See Section 3.4.1
and Figure 3.2 for details).
3.3.4 Marine zones within Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is primarily designed to protect large contiguous habitats.This alternative strives to meet a
balance between protecting site-specific locations where resource damage is evident while also protecting
of the largest area of contiguous habitats compared to the other alternatives proposed. To do this, some
marine zones are proposed to be combined and larger zones are included in each of the five geographic
regions(Upper Keys,Middle Keys,Lower Keys,Marquesas, and Tortugas). This approach aims to more
fully meet Goal 2 of the advisory council regulatory and zoning alternatives development workplan:
Protect large, contiguous, diverse, and interconnected habitats that provide natural spawning, nursery,
and permanent residence areas for the replenishment and genetic protection of marine life and protect
and preserve all habitats and species. The marine zone specific regulations and access restrictions would
be more restrictive in Alternative 4 than in any of the other proposed alternatives. Like Alternatives 2 and
3,this alternative incorporates most of the spatial and regulatory recommendations from the advisory
council and its working groups(shallow water wildlife and habitat protection working group and
ecosystem protection working group). However,this alternative includes the greatest conservation
protection measures and most restrictive access recommendations over all the other three alternatives.
Some of the zones in this alternative were discussed by the advisory council working groups but not
included as part of their final recommendations to the advisory council,in particular the Long
51
August 2019 FKNMS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 3: Description of alternatives
---- Alternative 3 (areferred)_
NOAA is proposing to limit the levels of use within a select number of SPAs. The areas proposed would
Abe Carysfort,Sombrero,and Sand Key SPAs. These sites include areas within each of the central regions
of the Florida Keys: Upper Keys,Middle Keys, and Lower Keys.
This proposal is based on increasing levels of overall use and in some areas, increasing concentrated uses
that could impact both the condition of sanctuary resources and the user experience. To address these
concerns, NOAA proposes to restrict the overall numbers of users that can access these areas at any one
time.In Alternative 33NOAA proposes to:
restrict user access in Carysfort, Sombrero, and Sand Key sanctuary preservation areas to Blue Star'
/// dive/snorkel operators.
In conjunction with this proposed regulation,NOAA would use data from the 2017 FWC Aerial
Overflight User Survey,other data sources,and input from the public and user groups to determine if the
proposed SPAs are the best sites to test this management approach. NOAA would consider innovative
approaches to managing concentrated uses in the sanctuary including limiting access to Blue Star
---�T dive/snorkel operators . (See Section 3.5 Goal 3,Objective 1,Activity 1 for proposed management
plan activities related to'Th action.)
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 includes the same proposed new regulation creating limited-use SPAs as described in
Alternative 3; however,this would only apply in Sombrero and Sand Key SPAs. In Alternative 4,
FKNMS is proposing to expand the Carysfort Sanctuary Preservation Area from the shoreline to the deep
reef(see Section 3.6).
-..y (00— /P°1f rf 90
I Blue Star is a program established by the sanctuary recognizing tour operators who are committed to promoting responsible and
sustainable diving,snorkeling,and fishing practices to reduce the impact of these activities on ecosystems in the Florida Keys.
Blue Star operators take the extra step to educate their clients to be better environmental stewards and to interact responsibly with
natural resources in the Florida Keys.Visit https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/bluestar for more information.
60
August 2019 FKNMS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
p. Qn '1°
Chapter 3: Description of alternatives
preservation Sombrero Reef, and Sand Key Sombrero Reef, and Sand Key
areas Sanctuary preservation areas. sanctuary preservation areas.
15 C.F.R. § 922.164(d)(1)(iii)
No action:
Castnet permits are issued for
and valid in all sanctuary
preservation areas where
fishing is prohibited (with
exceptions noted above for catch
and release in certain zones), Eliminate, over a three-year
3.4.4 and are issued by calendar year. period, the practice of issuing
Bait fishing Hair hook permits are valid in permits that allow capture of Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
only Davis, Conch, and
permits Alligator sanctuary baitfish from within the sanctuary
preservation areas.
preservation areas, where
fishing is prohibited (with
exceptions noted above), are
issued for October 15 through
April 15, and only allow fishing
i from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m.
`" daily.
3.4.5 No action:
Restricted access Current regulations do not Restrict user access in Restrict user access in
in select include specific marine zones Carysfort, Sombrero, Sombrero and Sand
sanctuarythat regulate or restrict the No change from Alternative 1 and Sand Key Key sanctuary
number of users that can access sanctuary
preservation preservation areas
an area or marine zone at any preservation areas
areas one time.
62
August 2019 FKNMS Draft Environmental impact Statement
•
Y-V
( Y d y 'f�11 1 9 z r' 2,5 9 P i,�y II Jy I! I :J :/, Y..3 1
CC
Priv ,' .r Priv ,/
h S 6 -'`; # 6 -// PA h S 16 ,,, ' PA
20 . r
— €A8 _sokti8i7idok LT " � RERO KEYT
60s 14211 12h o 60s 142ft 12M 1 ! �i{
, 17
A
. J.
r r,4 Prty , -` ►.�� � 5 Priv
t .
to
el Alternative 2 r`
approx.167 ac(.3 sq mi) 1 S
Alternative 1 -status quo ! ' Sanctuary Preservation Area
q i
approx.167 ac(.3 sq mi) 11 L+ r t/ Idle Speed '1 4
Sanctuary Preservation Area 1 3 I\ I No Anchor 132
a
\ Y PA" 19. 23' S� y
C 1i i to 19.,/J 2;3 r
- 0. 1 6 / 414__PA ., „ A
\ \
>01'viBRERQ KEY Lt. - 2�.-- . >c� R R K Here-► ► 4 4► r.......:*****ed-24--- _-
60s 142ft 12M 43 S o I 1 60s 142ft 124 ��'w* . 41PA4
Ir4 �J t 1
►.. 54 Priv - r .� 54 Pr/v
50 '` 50 /r
{ Alternative 3-preferred j 1 Alternative 4
approx. _r I S approx.333 ac(.5 sq mi) c
S
Blue Star Operator Only .a =I Blue Star Operator Only
I/� Idle Speedt
Idle Speed
L ti No Anchor 1 32 l r 1 No Anchor 13'2
N
Sombrero Key Wr E I , , l 1 i i , t
Sanctuary Preservation Area s 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Protects the most extensive spur-and-groove and deep fore reef community within the Middle Keys with Middle Keys Region
a high abundance of ESA-listed star corals and an important site for diverse coral assemblages such as
brain and other boulder coral species and barrel sponges.The historic Sombrero Key lighthouse is included
in this SPA.This zone was originally designed to limit consumptive activities and separate users engaged in
different activities.
Florida
Rai/
e
a
Floti
0
This map contains proposed marine zone alternatives for public comment. Proposed marine zone
alternatives do not reflect agency decision at this time.
For more details about the proposed alternatives and zone descriptions,including associated regulations,
see Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this DEIS.
Chapter 5: Environmental consequences
---p Proposed marine zone modification:Sanctuary preservation areas
There are 19 SPAs in the current FKNMS. Under Alternative 3,ONMS would revise the boundaries of
some existing SPAs and create seven new SPAs(one more than is included in Alternative 2).Alternative
3 would include implementation of a pilot program to create limited-use areas at three SPAs(Carysfort,
Sombrero,and Sand Key). All other proposed regulations included in Alternative 2 would apply. The
general impacts to biological resources of modifications to SPAs proposed under Alternative 3 are the
same as Alternative 2(described in Section 5.4.1.3).
Beneficial impacts:In Alternative 3,the proposed SPAS would have a direct beneficial effect on habitats
that would be added to existing marine zones or would be protected through proposed new zones.
Additional habitat types targeted for protection through Alternative 3 would include patch reefs and
deeper coral reef habitats;high-relief,resilient,or ESA-listed coral species;and ecological features that
are known to support fish aggregations.A selection of modified or new SPAs proposed in Alternative 3
are described below to provide specific examples of the additional direct beneficial impacts to habitat
and wildlife associated with implementing this alternative:
New Long Key Tennessee Reef SPA:Under Alternative 3, ONMS would create a new SPA adjacent to
Long Key State Park and extending to the deep reef at Tennessee Reef.This new SPA would protect
large,contiguous,interconnected seagrass, shallow hardbottom,aggregate patch reef, and deep,drowned
spur-and-groove reef habitats.This SPA would also provide a corridor for migration of different life
stages of fishes from Florida Bay into the Middle Keys.Protection of this area and application of existing
and proposed new SPA regulations(described in Section 5.4.1.3)would have a direct beneficial impact
on the habitats and associated wildlife in this area by avoiding potential adverse impacts to biological
resources associated with human use of this area,including anchoring.
Limited-use area pilot program: Implementation of a pilot limited-use program at three SPAs(Carysfort,
Sombrero, and Sand Key)would provide direct beneficial impact to resources in these areas from a
decreased level of concentrated and overall use. Easy access to recreational sites in the Florida Keys has
increased the burden on numerous habitats and the species with which they are associated. Implementing
the limited-use SPAs proposed in this alternative would also provide indirect beneficial impacts to
biological resources by increasing the information available to assess carrying capacity in sensitive areas
and associated wildlife disturbances,impacts to species diversity, abundance,and distribution,and direct
impacts of overuse.
Adverse impacts:As described in Section 5.4.1.3,no adverse impacts to biological resources are
expected from the proposed modified or new SPAs and pilot program for limited use areas.
5.5.1.4 Impacts to biological resources from updates to the FKNMS management
plan (Alternative 3)
The impacts to biological resources from the proposed management plan under Alternative 3 would be
the same as the impacts under Alternative 2 (as described in Section 5.4.1.4)because the proposed
management plan would be the same under alternatives 2 and 3.
315
August 2019 FKNMS Draft Environmental Impact Statement