RESTORATION BLUEPRINT

Proposal would preserve fragile marine environment

RESTORATION BLUEPRINT - A man standing in front of a television - Seminar
Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell stopped by the SAC meeting and NOAA Restoration Blueprint presentation to offer her support in any way she can and to encourage her constituents to participate in the process.

In a much-anticipated Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council meeting in Marathon on Aug. 20, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries presented an extensive proposal to preserve and steward our fragile marine environments. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement, better known as the “Restoration Blueprint,” focuses on three areas of suggested change: management, zoning, and restoration.

Sarah Fangman, sanctuary superintendent, prefaced the four “alternatives” contained within the blueprint by reminding everyone that while no one perfect solution exists, a collaborative solution would emerge from the process.

Alternative 1, the “status quo” action, allows for no additional actions to be taken in terms of regulations or management. Fangman said this alternative does not guarantee that marine resources will remain “status quo,” just that sanctuary management plans will.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 each, to varying degrees, would: (1) expand the sanctuary boundaries, (2) update sanctuary-wide regulations, (3) modify existing and create new marine zones, (4) update marine zone-specific regulations, and (5) revise the sanctuary management plan.

Fangman noted, “I think we can all agree that our way of life and our economy are all tied to our ocean resources. I suspect we will start to disagree on exactly what we need to do to make those ecosystems more healthy. That said, we must work together and we must take steps to address this.”

RESTORATION BLUEPRINT - A group of people sitting at a table - Conversation
SAC member Will Benson, whose constituents include many fishermen, voices his concerns about unclear wording in the proposal and asks for clarification. The new plan could include changes to zoning, no-wake zones, and trolling areas which would affect fishermen.

Andy Bruckner, a research coordinator with the sanctuary, presented the environmental consequences, both biological and physical, of Alternative 3. Bruckner emphasized how the proposed regulations and actions were intended to minimize physical impact and allow for species populations and biodiversity to rebound within protected areas and “spill-over” to benefit fishing and other areas.

Beth Dieveney, a policy analyst with the sanctuary presented the sanctuary’s Regulatory and Marine Zone Preferred Alternative. Known as “Alternative 3,” it is neither the most nor least restrictive. 

The next steps in the process will be SAC and public comment, state partner coordination, and Agency and Fishery Management Council consultations. These will result in a final environmental impact statement and public comment, and finally with revised rules and zones. NOAA and the sanctuary continue to invite public comment to ensure the proposal can meet as many needs as possible while still effectively stewarding marine resources.

NOAA and sanctuary staff recognized their many partners in the effort, including SAC members and their constituents. In the years leading up to the blueprint’s release, public meetings have been held in hopes of capturing and addressing advisory council and community concerns.

Fangman thanked everyone for their willingness to participate in those talks.

“I hope that you see your voices and fingerprints in what we present to you today and that you hear what you’ve contributed in this process,” she said, adding that she hoped they remain engaged and active in voicing their concerns now that the blueprint had been shared.”


RESTORATION BLUEPRINT - A group of people sitting at a table -
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council member Dave Makepeace asks questions during the advisory council discussion session. TIFFANY DUONG/Keys Weekly


Several key aspects of the four “Alternatives” are summarized below:

Alternative 1 – “Status Quo” – no additional actions are taken in terms of regulations or management. 

Alternative 2 – expand sanctuary boundaries to include Tortugas; update 3 existing sanctuary-wide regulations and propose 4 new; propose new marine zones (including Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and sanctuary Preservation Areas (SPAs) and converting Ecological Reserves (ERs) and Special Use Areas (SUAs) into Conservation Areas (CAs) and proposing new CAs); eliminating exceptions to and updating existing marine zone regulations (more protective than Alternative 1); and proposing a new management plan.

Alternative 3 (sanctuary preferred) – expand sanctuary boundaries to include Tortugas; update 4 existing sanctuary-wide regulations and propose 4 new; propose new marine zones (including WMAs, SPAs, and CAs); eliminating exceptions to and updating existing marine zone regulations (more protective than Alternatives 1 and 2); and proposing a new management plan (same as Alternative 2).

Alternative 4 – expand sanctuary boundaries to include Tortugas and Pulley Ridge; update 4 existing sanctuary-wide regulations and propose 4 new; propose new marine zones (including WMAs, SPAs, and CAs); eliminating exceptions to and updating existing marine zone regulations (more protective than Alternatives 1, 2, and 3); and proposing a new management plan (same as Alternative 2).