Comment from Leanne Lawrence

--Suggestion for reasonable managment plan of high use/sensitive areas--- I suggest that rather than completely closing some areas, especially in the Lower Keys Backcountry, you review and consider an approach like that used in Washington to manage activites and recreational use of Mt. St. Helens via the Mt. St. Helens Institute. They manage a similar human impact problem on an environmentaly sensitive area, and, as in the Keys, they do have some areas that are typically closed, but even those have recently been opened to guided tours on a very limited basis (specifically, a series of into-the-crater hikes offered approx three times a year), and they utilize a seasonal permit program to control overuse of the popular hiking trails to the summit. The high use season has a limited number of alloted permits per day available to the public, while off-season numbers are unrestricted. Additionally, access can be gained by taking guided hikes, which are typically conducted both by the institute and a few local guide services, which have the benefit of allowing for fundraising along with eco-friendly education. In the Keys, rather than blanket bans on certain activities, areas, etc, a similar approach could be used to limit human impact in high use or sensitve areas without completely shutting the public out from such a unique environment. For example, would it really be detrimental to the environment if the sanctuary offered(or contracted out) something like a guided kayak tour three or four times a year through an area that is typically off-limits such as the interior creeks of Sawyer Key? I'd think that the benefits to tourism, education, and even fund-raising would far outweigh the impact of a few kayacks or snorkelers using these areas a few times a year.