TGCC verbal presentation to the FGBNMS SAC
Draft Management Plan public hearing
Date: November 17, 2010
I am Frank Burek. At the last Texas Gulf Council of Diving Clubs (TGCC) board meeting on November 11th, I was asked to pass on some of their comments about the FGBNMS DMP.
The TGCC and some of its members became interested in seeking protection for the Flower Garden Banks in the late 1960s and early 70's. At various times since then we have participated in doing what we could to move the process along. We have even commented on the scoping process for this DMP.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the DMP, and compliment you on the scope, content and detail of the DMP. It's very well done. (TGGC supports the general plan!)
TGCC supports your decision to rework the boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks and Stetson Bank. Also the addition of the nine other banks (Horseshoe, McGrail, Geyer, Bright, Sonnier, Alderdice, MacNeil, Rankin and 28 Fathom Banks) listed in the DMP. (TGCC supports boundary expansion!)
TGCC especially supports at the extension of the Mooring Buoy system to these areas. Several TGCC members, or members of member clubs were involved with the Gulf Reef Environmental Action Team (GREAT) during their initial installation. TGCC also provided funding to support their installation. To this day, the Mooring Buoy system continues to aid the FGBNMS in protecting the substrate from anchoring damage, managing the impact of recreational diving and helping with diver safety. (TGCC supports the mooring buoy maintenance and expansion!)
With respect to flying the "Alpha" dive flag (page 66, Activity 2.1); TGCC would recommend that both dive flags be flown. (TGCC recommends a change to the DMP!)
The DMP also mentions (page 48, 49, 50, RM.4, Activity 4.1) investigating the impacts of fishing and diving. The DMP indicates that this is still going through a public review process. TGCC understands the need to fine tune the knowledge of the impacts of each activity, but anticipates that because they are currently being managed these impacts are minimal. (TGCC plans to monitor these issues as they continue through the review process.)
Finally, staffing and costs in general - the OAAP and all plans. TGCC feels that "smaller" is better. Most of the DMP's benefits are minimal in costs and those should be pursued first. (TGCC observation, no specific recommendations for the DMP.)
Thank you again for giving TGCC the opportunity to comment on the FGBNMS DMP.
Draft Management Plan public hearing
Date: November 17, 2010
I am Frank Burek. At the last Texas Gulf Council of Diving Clubs (TGCC) board meeting on November 11th, I was asked to pass on some of their comments about the FGBNMS DMP.
The TGCC and some of its members became interested in seeking protection for the Flower Garden Banks in the late 1960s and early 70's. At various times since then we have participated in doing what we could to move the process along. We have even commented on the scoping process for this DMP.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the DMP, and compliment you on the scope, content and detail of the DMP. It's very well done. (TGGC supports the general plan!)
TGCC supports your decision to rework the boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks and Stetson Bank. Also the addition of the nine other banks (Horseshoe, McGrail, Geyer, Bright, Sonnier, Alderdice, MacNeil, Rankin and 28 Fathom Banks) listed in the DMP. (TGCC supports boundary expansion!)
TGCC especially supports at the extension of the Mooring Buoy system to these areas. Several TGCC members, or members of member clubs were involved with the Gulf Reef Environmental Action Team (GREAT) during their initial installation. TGCC also provided funding to support their installation. To this day, the Mooring Buoy system continues to aid the FGBNMS in protecting the substrate from anchoring damage, managing the impact of recreational diving and helping with diver safety. (TGCC supports the mooring buoy maintenance and expansion!)
With respect to flying the "Alpha" dive flag (page 66, Activity 2.1); TGCC would recommend that both dive flags be flown. (TGCC recommends a change to the DMP!)
The DMP also mentions (page 48, 49, 50, RM.4, Activity 4.1) investigating the impacts of fishing and diving. The DMP indicates that this is still going through a public review process. TGCC understands the need to fine tune the knowledge of the impacts of each activity, but anticipates that because they are currently being managed these impacts are minimal. (TGCC plans to monitor these issues as they continue through the review process.)
Finally, staffing and costs in general - the OAAP and all plans. TGCC feels that "smaller" is better. Most of the DMP's benefits are minimal in costs and those should be pursued first. (TGCC observation, no specific recommendations for the DMP.)
Thank you again for giving TGCC the opportunity to comment on the FGBNMS DMP.