ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

M/V Wellwood GROUNDING SITE RESTORATION

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,

Monroe County, Florida

Prepared by:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Marine Sanctuaries Division

1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

April 2002
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 TOC-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1.0. Purpose of and Need for the Action....................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Background................................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Action........................................................... 1-8

1.4 Proposed Action........................................................................................ 1-9

1.5 Scope of This Environmental Assessment ................................................. 1-9

Section 2.0 Alternatives Being Considered ............................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Description of Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Other Commercially Available Restoration Alternatives.......................... 2-11

Section 3.0. Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Location and Area Uses............................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Surrounding Land Use ................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Climate...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.4 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 3-2

3.5 Noise......................................................................................................... 3-3

3.6 Geology..................................................................................................... 3-3

3.7 Water Resources........................................................................................ 3-4

3.8 Biological Resources ................................................................................. 3-7

3.9 Infrastructure........................................................................................... 3-14

3.10 Cultural Resources.................................................................................... 3-14

3.11 Hazardous and Toxic Substances.............................................................. 3-18

3.12 Socioeconomics....................................................................................... 3-18

3.13 Quality of Life......................................................................................... 3-20

Section 4.0. Environmental Consequences of Proposed and Other Alternatives........................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Preferred Alternative................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 No Action ............................................................................................... 4-11

4.4 Substrate Stabilization.............................................................................. 4-14

4.5 Substrate Stabilization and Structural Restoration..................................... 4-18

4.6 Substrate Stabilization, Structural Restoration and Coral Transplantation. 4-23

4.7 Substrate Stabilization, Structural Restoration and Enhanced Biological

Restoration.............................................................................................. 4-26

4.8 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................. 4-29

4.9 Mitigation Measures................................................................................ 4-31

4.10 Conclusions............................................................................................. 4-33

Section 5.0. Regulatory Review................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969............................................. 5-1

5.2 National Marine Sanctuaries Act................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act ..................... 5-1

5.4 Clean Water Act........................................................................................ 5-2

5.5 Coastal Zone Management Consistency..................................................... 5-2

5.6 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of

Wetland Resources Management................................................................ 5-2
Table of Contents

TOC-2 April 2002

5.7 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of

Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources......................................... 5-2

5.8 Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources................... 5-3

5.9 United States Coast Guard.......................................................................... 5-3

5.10 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................ 5-3

Section 6.0. List of Preparers.................................................................................................... 6-1

Section 7.0. References............................................................................................................. 7-1

Section 8.0. Finding of No Significant Impact........................................................................... 8-1

Finding of No Significant Impact Statement...........................................................8-4

TABLES

Table 1-1 Injury Areas........................................................................................................... 1-5

Table 2-1 Matrix of Alternatives........................................................................................... 2-2

Table 3-1 Water quality characteristics in the Molasses Reef................................................. 3-5

Table 3-2 Endangered and threatened species occurrence in the Florida Keys....................... 3-11

Table 3-3 ROI employment by major sectors...................................................................... 3-18

Table 3-4 Demographics of Monroe County........................................................................ 3-20

Table 4-1 Alternatives Analyzed ........................................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-2 Summary of effects................................................................................................ 4-3

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Molasses Reef Area Location Map......................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-2 Grounding Location of the Freighter Wellwood ..................................................... 1-4

Figure 2-1 Stabilization Technique (Module) .......................................................................... 2-6

Figure 2-2 Area of Site Covered by Modules........................................................................... 2-7

Figure 3-1 Currents Affecting the Florida Keys....................................................................... 3-6

Figure 3-2 Molasses Reef Sanctuary Preservation Area......................................................... 3-15
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 1-1

SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to systematically evaluate the short- and

long-term environmental and socioeconomic effects related to the restoration of the grounding

site of the motor vessel (M/V) Wellwood. The vessel ran aground on Molasses Reef in Key

Largo National Marine Sanctuary (KLNMS) in the Florida Keys on August 4, 1984. 

Six alternatives (including the “no action” alternative) are presented and comparatively

evaluated to determine whether the quality of the marine environment would be significantly

affected by the proposed action. This document has been prepared in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations and

the guidelines of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the

NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 guidelines for compliance with NEPA.

1.2 BACKGROUND

Molasses Reef contains some of the most aesthetically valuable and heavily visited reefs in

the continental United States. It is part of the Florida Reef Tract, the third largest barrier reef

system in the world. In 1975, Congress recognized the significance of this area when it

designated the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary. The KLNMS was formally

incorporated into the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) in July 1997 with

the publication of the final regulations implementing the 1990 congressional designation

under the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA). 

Pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., and the

FKNMSPA, NOAA is the federal trustee for the natural and cultural resources of the

FKNMS. Under Section 312 of the NMSA, NOAA has the authority to recover monetary

damages for injury, destruction, or loss of Sanctuary resources, and to use the recovered

monies to restore injured or lost sanctuary resources. Appendix A contains the relevant

sections of the NMSA related to this action.

On August 4, 1984, the M/V Wellwood ran aground on a coral reef on Molasses Reef off of

Key Largo, FL. The 122-meter Cypriot-registered freighter ran aground on the upper

forereef of Molasses Reef in a minimum of 6 meters of water. The Wellwood remained

aground for 12 days. Additional injury to the coral occurred during the 12 days the vessel

was aground as a result of an initial attempt to power off the reef, from tugboat propwash

abrasion, from extended periods of shading under the vessel, and from cable abrasion during
Section 1: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Page 1-2 April 2002

several failed attempts to remove the vessel before August 16. The grounding destroyed

5,805 square meters of living corals and injured over 75,000 square meters of reef habitat,

including 644 square meters of coral reef framework. A settlement between NOAA and the

responsible parties was agreed to on December 22, 1986. Under the terms of the settlement

the responsible parties purchased an annuity to be paid to NOAA over 15 years in variable

annual installments beginning in 1987 and scheduled to end in 2001. Between 1987 and

1995, the bulk of the payments were allocated to payment of civil penalties and repayment

of response and damage assessment costs incurred by NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard

during and immediately following the grounding. Payment allocated for restoration costs did

not begin until 1989 and the final installment was paid in December 2001.

The grounding caused severe adverse biological and physical impacts on the reef community

and led to widespread mortality of benthic fauna and displacement of mobile fauna. The

injuries are documented in Harrigan (1984) and Hudson and Diaz (1988). Figure 1-1 shows

the location of Molasses Reef in the FKNMS and Figure 1-2 shows the area of injury at the

reef. Five distinct areas were identified as injured. The injury ranged from superficial

scraping of the reef surface and toppling of large coral heads to complete crushing of coral

heads and severe cracking of the reef framework structure. Table 1-1 summarizes the injuries

by location and further detail is provided below:

• Inbound Track. The vessel created an inbound grounding track approximately 20 meters

wide and affecting bottom substrate at 6 meters depth as it approached the reef. Injury

along this track was discontinuous. It toppled or injured thirteen large coral heads and

left bottom paint embedded in exposed coral skeletons. The primary coral species in the

pre-injury area was the Montastrea complex (boulder star coral), but many other species

were present, including Diploria spp (brain corals), Acropora cervicornis (staghorn

coral), A. palmata (elkhorn coral), Siderastrea siderea (massive starlet coral), and Porites

spp (finger coral & mustard hill coral). The Wellwood also removed a KLNMS mooring

buoy along this track. Toppled corals were stabilized, as appropriate, immediately

following the grounding. For the most part, natural recovery (i.e., regrowth of tissue on

coral heads) is occurring and thus restoration in this area is not necessary.

• Hull Resting Area (“Parking Lot”). On the forereef where the hull of the Wellwood came

to rest, there was near to total destruction of the coral cover. The pre-injury habitat was

primarily composed of sea fans (Gorgonia spp.), other gorgonians, and colonies of A.

palmata and Montastrea complex. This entire area was crushed through vessel pounding

for 12 days and experienced severe shading during the 12 days the vessel was aground.

This area is known as the “parking lot” because of its flattened nature and is the primary

area in need of restoration and thus the subject of the proposed action.


Table 1-1: Injury Areas

Injury Site Species Injured Type of Injury Emergency

Biological Triage

Cur

Inbound path Montastrea complex, Diploria

spp., Acropora cervicornis &

palmata, Porites spp.

Toppled large heads, paintembedded in coral skeleton,removed mooring buoy

Stabilized toppled coralheads

Natural recovery 

Hull resting area;“parking lot”

Acropora palmata,Montastrea complex,Gorgonia spp., othergorgonians

Crushed framework andcleared substrate; severeshading

Some transplantation ofsmall coral heads

Little recovery; prrestoration

Original hullresting area

Montastrea complex,Colpophyllia natans,gorgonians

Toppled coral heads, createda rubble berm, clearedsubstrate

Stabilized toppled coralheads

Little recovery, in 

Shallow cableabrasion area

Montastrea complex,Dendrogyra cylindrus

Patchy injury. Toppled coralheads, grooved abrasion inthe sides of corals

Stabilized toppled coralheads

Patchy injury ovelocate. Primarily 

Deep cableabrasion area

Montastrea complex,Xestospongia muta

Patchy injury. Toppling andabrasion of large coral headsand vase sponges

Stabilized toppled coralheads

Patchy injury ovelocate. Primarily 
Section 1: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Page 1-6 April 2002

• Starboard Area. Along the starboard side of the hull resting site there was an extensive

area that experienced patchy areas of destruction. This was the original resting area of

the vessel before it pivoted during initial removal attempts. At least five large

Montastrea complex and one large Colpophyllia natans (boulder brain coral) colonies and

numerous smaller organisms were destroyed as the vessel scraped the bottom. This area,

while not as flattened as the hull resting site, is in need of restoration and is also the

subject of the proposed action.

• Cable Injury Area. To the east of the grounding site, a large area was injured by abrasion

from nylon and steel cables during the vessel removal attempts. There was patchy injury

in this area; eight large Montastrea complex colonies were toppled, as were four large

colonies of Dendrogyra cylindrus (pillar coral), but total destruction of entire colonies

was limited. Abrasion created grooves in some coral heads and toppled others, but this

area did not experience total crushing. Injury in this area was intermittent and was

stabilized as appropriate immediately after the grounding event, including turning over

several toppled coral heads. The area has now largely recovered (tissue has grown over

injured areas on the coral heads). Restoration is not called for in this area and monitoring

is inappropriate due to the patchiness of injury and difficulty in relocating specific coral

heads throughout such a large area.

• Deep Cable Injury Area. Seaward of the grounding site, there was an additional cable

abrasion area in a deeper zone (up to 20 meters depth). Intermittent injury similar to that

at the shallow cable site occurred. Many large vase sponges (Xestospongia muta, giant

barrel sponge) and several large coral colonies (Montastrea complex) were abraded or

turned over. Though widespread throughout this large area, the injury was patchy. 

Injuries were stabilized as appropriate immediately after the grounding event, including

turning over several toppled coral heads. Restoration is not called for in this area and

monitoring is inappropriate due to the patchiness of injury and difficulty in relocating

specific sponges and coral heads throughout such a large area.

Hudson and Diaz (1988) conducted an extensive survey of the site to identify framework damage

and loss of coral cover. Looking at the inbound path, the original resting area and the final resting

area, they concluded that of the 1,285 square meters of substrate surveyed, 50 percent--644 square

meters—suffered framework fracturing. Because framework fracturing is caused by severe pressure

on the substrate, the same area experienced 100% loss of live coral cover. The remaining survey area

(628 square meters) experienced 70 – 90% loss of live coral cover in an area with original coral cover

of between 25 – 50%.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 1-7

Following the grounding, NOAA completed a series of activities to minimize the potential

for further injury to the area. These included the following: 

• Vessel salvage (August 1984). As soon as the incident was reported, KLNMS and Looe

Key National Marine Sanctuary (LKNMS) staff responded and assisted on site until the

Wellwood was removed. They provided technical assistance to the U.S. Coast Guard and

performed reconnaissance dives to assess the threat of further injury to the reefs. The

Coast Guard took charge of having the vessel removed while coordinating with the

KLNMS staff.

• Emergency biological triage (August 1984 and 1985). Immediately following

documentation of the grounding, NOAA biologists thoroughly searched the area for

damaged coral colonies that could survive if turned upright immediately. Many corals

did not survive the initial impact and the extended grounding period; however, those

which did were salvaged and re-oriented in the area. In addition, several large head corals

(greater than 6 feet diameter) were turned over and left in place.

• Long-term monitoring. Beginning immediately after the grounding event with surveys to

determine the extent of injury and continuing until recently, NOAA has funded several

monitoring efforts at the most heavily injured grounding site to document the recovery

and status of the impact area. This has included monitoring of recovery of the coral

community (Gittings, 1988; Gittings & Bright, 1990), fish populations (Dennis & Bright,

1990), and algal communities (Littler, et al, 1984; Hanisak, et al, 1989). A recent

monitoring report by NURC (1997) documented the status of algae, coral, and fish

communities 13 years after the grounding. 

• Development of a proposed restoration plan (1999-2001). NOAA has developed this

proposed restoration plan that draws on the experience gained from the restoration of

other grounding sites in the area and outlines a preferred alternative for the restoration of

the Wellwood grounding site. Restoration is long overdue, having been delayed due to the

payment structure and associated programmatic issues.

Additional injury to the reef occurred as a result of Hurricanes Elena and Kate in 1985 and

the active 1998 storm season (Groundhog Day Storm, Hurricane Georges). Hurricane Kate

removed much of the loose rubble created by the grounding which had remained at the site

during the first year, as well as some of the newly recruiting corals (Gittings, 1988). The

1998 storm season caused further vertical erosion of the “parking lot” area (H. Hudson,

personal communication). The storms created several pits and exposed the underlying

framework cracks to additional erosion potential. Current calculations by FKNMS staff

estimate that an additional 46 cubic meters of material has been lost from the site since the
Section 1: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Page 1-8 April 2002

original injury occurred. No volumetric measurements were taken at the time of grounding,

but NOAA estimates that 75% of the volume of current excavations is the result of postgrounding injury; this is only a very rough estimate, but it represents the best estimate

available from NOAA. The 1998 storm season also removed many of the juvenile coral

recruits and the colonies that had been transplanted in 1985 from nearby Pickles Reef

(Hudson and Diaz, 1988). Although damage from hurricanes is a natural occurrence, and

Hurricane Georges caused large amounts of reef material loss from nearby undisturbed reefs,

NOAA believes that the extent of hurricane damage was increased due to the already

compromised state of the injured reef.

The original community at the Wellwood grounding site consisted of a transition habitat that

was primarily hardground, but included numerous large boulder coral colonies and a diverse

community of hard and soft corals and other benthic organisms. The principal coral species

present at the site included Montastrea complex, A. palmata, D. cylindrus, Agaricia

agaricites (lettuce coral), Diploria spp., Favia fragum (golfball coral), Meandrina meandrites

(maze coral), and Dichocoenia stokesii (elliptical star coral). Cover also included a healthy

gorgonian community, including Gorgonia ventalina (common sea fan) and Briareum

asbestinum (corky sea finger), the zoanthid Palythoa caribbea, and fire corals, Millepora spp.

 Although the reef substrate did not have high relief, the presence of large coral colonies

created visible relief throughout the area. 

In 1993, NOAA sponsored a workshop in Key Largo gathering together coral reef scientists

and other experts to solicit their recommendations regarding the best methods and

approaches to coral reef restoration and monitoring in the FKNMS and specifically, the

Wellwood site. This workshop resulted in a report produced by the National Undersea

Research Center (NURC) titled “Guidelines and recommendations for coral reef restoration

in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary” (Miller, McFall and Hulbert 1993; [hereafter

referred to as NURC 1993]). One recommendation of the report was that “A detailed

quantitative re-evaluation of natural recovery at the Wellwood site (should occur)...The nineyear record should be carefully evaluated before any restoration activity begins at the site.”

That evaluation has been conducted (see Section 3.8). The report also makes other

recommendations which are referred to where appropriate. The proposed alternative

following in this assessment is consistent with the recommendations of the workshop.

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of the proposed action is to restore a component of the structural relief of the

reef at the grounding site to a state similar to its pre-injury condition. Natural recovery at this

site is unlikely within a reasonable time frame, and ultimate community composition is
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 1-9

uncertain due to the severity of the physical injury to the reef substrate and alteration of the

physical habitat (e.g., topography

and contours, reef framework). Significant natural reef accretion to replicate the pregrounding structure could not be expected to occur in the foreseeable future, as evidenced by

the low level of recovery over the past 16 years. In addition, stabilization of the injured area

is needed to prevent further injury, as evidenced by the fact that the extent of the structural

reef injury (both area and volume) has now increased as a result of the 1998 storm season,

as described above.

The area where the injury occurred has ecological, cultural, economic, and social significance.

These are described in detail in Chapter 2. The proposed action is needed to provide the

former range of ecological and socioeconomic functions and values present in this area of the

Sanctuary. This objective is in keeping with the goals and policies of the NMSA, the

FKNMSPA, and the FKNMS Management Plan and implementing regulations.

Although it has been over 16 years since the grounding occurred, the structured payment of

the settlement monies contributed to the delayed implementation of restoration at the

Wellwood site. With the recovered funding and other resources now available, NOAA is

now in the position to initiate a comprehensive restoration action.

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION

NOAA proposes to restore the M/V Wellwood grounding site at Molasses Reef, FKNMS

and also to stabilize the additional injury caused by the 1998 storm season. The proposed

action is to stabilize the injured reef framework to prevent further injury to the reef system,

provide structural restoration to mimic the original relief, and re-establish biological

communities. In contrast to an artificial reef, the proposed restoration would stabilize the

substrate and restore a component of the vertical relief that existed at the site prior to injury

by the ship's grounding. The exposed material would primarily be limestone, which is

naturally occurring on the reef, and the design would emulate the shape and configuration of

natural reef formations. The goal is to ultimately restore a component of the structural relief

of the reef, to the greatest extent practicable, to a state similar to that, which existed before

the injury occurred. Because Molasses Reef is a Sanctuary Preservation Area with high

profile as a tourist destination, NOAA believes it especially important to design an

aesthetically pleasing restoration solution for this grounding site. Restoration is intended to

repair an injured reef area, as close as possible to its pre-injured condition. 

 It is proposed that the repairs would begin in May 2002. Construction would occur for

approximately 30 days. The restoration would occur in a heavily used recreational dive and

snorkel area, and it must be timed to coincide with good weather conditions. To ensure
Section 1: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Page 1-10 April 2002

public safety, NOAA would request the public to avoid the area during restoration

construction. NOAA would ensure that appropriate notice is given to the public to

encourage the use of alternative locations. Boaters and shipping interests in the area would

be notified of the upcoming construction through a Notice to Mariners. A Federal Register

Notice would alert the public to the construction and request their cooperation in avoiding

the immediate area for safety reasons. Additional notification to local dive shops, marinas,

and boat rental agencies would be distributed through the Team OCEAN volunteer network,

a sanctuary outreach program. Local and regional media would be notified with a NOAA

press release. Additionally, a public information meeting on the project was held in Key

Largo, Florida, on January 9, 2002. Based upon experience with previous restoration efforts,

NOAA has found that prior notification is sufficient to secure public safety.

1.5 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This assessment provides the following information:

• Description of the environment immediate to and surrounding the area affected by the

proposed action.

• Description of the environmental and socioeconomic resources in the area affected by the

proposed action.

• Description of the reasonable alternatives considered (including the “no action”

alternative).

• Discussion of the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects of the alternatives,

including mitigative measures that could be taken to minimize adverse impacts.ß

This assessment is based on existing information, reports, and data. The potential effects of

the proposed restoration activity are based on the current available data for the proposed

action with the understanding that specific logistical details are similar in scope to other reef

restoration projects undertaken within the FKNMS. Should later information substantially

change the results of the Environmental Assessment, appropriate supplemental analyses will

be conducted.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 2-1

SECTION 2. ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

NOAA has been and continues to evaluate reef restoration alternatives from throughout the

Caribbean and other reef areas, and is working to refine those and develop new techniques

for the specific habitats and management requirements of the FKNMS (NOAA 1995a, b, c,

1996d, e). This has been an evolutionary process as NOAA staff strive to implement

restoration techniques that provide the greatest overall environmental and socioeconomic

benefit in the most cost-effective manner. This includes the use of both new and modified

physical (structural) restoration techniques as well as innovative biological techniques. 

Traditional biological methods have involved only the transplantation of coral heads; as the

understanding of reef ecology continues to expand, the options for biological restoration have

also expanded. The restoration alternatives considered for the Wellwood site draw on the

experience of previous NOAA restoration activities, in particular the restoration of the

following vessel grounding sites: M/V Alec Owen Maitland and the M/V Elpis (1995) in the

Key Largo portion of the FKNMS, the Contship Houston (1997) in the lower portion of the

FKNMS, the M/V Fortuna Reefer (1997) off Mona Island, Puerto Rico, and the R/V

Columbus Iselin (1999) in the Looe Key portion of the FKNMS. The experiences of Florida

restoration activities, and of many coral researchers have also been crucial to the development

of this plan, as have the recommendations of the workshop described in NURC (1993).

The goal of the restoration activities at the Wellwood grounding site is to recreate, to the

extent practicable, suitable habitat that enhances recolonization on the injured reef without

attempting to completely compensate for the loss of the thousands of years of growth that

created the physical structure of the reef. In addition to the preferred and no action

alternatives, there are four additional restoration options. These options are built upon four

basic restoration methods (substrate stabilization, structural restoration, transplantation, and

enhanced biological restoration) that can be used separately or be combined with one or more

others for many alternative permutations. Several of these combinations have been eliminated

for consideration because they do not meet the restoration goals of this action. Table 2-1

summarizes all the alternatives and provides justification for those that are not considered

further. Those considered further are described below.

NOAA’s preferred alternative is to use all four methods to best approximate pre-grounding

conditions and habitat functions. It calls for the stabilization of injured framework with the

use of reef modules and tremie concrete pour. Reef structures would be placed around the

injury area to mimic the coral colonies destroyed by the grounding, and coral transplantation

and other biological methods would be used to restore the coral community.
Table 2-1 Matrix of Alternatives

Options Stabilization Structural Transplantation

Enhanced

Biological

Considered

Further Justificatio

1

Y Consideration of the No Action altern

CEQ regulations.

2 X Y

NOAA believes that stabilization is thfor long-term restoration. This option long-term health with minimal disrup

3X N4 XN5 XN

NOAA believes that stabilization is thfor long-term restoration. These altereliminated due to the absence of stab

6 X X Y

NOAA believes that structural restorastabilization would meet the goals of 

7X X N8X X N

NOAA believes that biological restordevelopment would not meet the goacreate to the extent practicable, the pr

9 XX N

10 X X N11 X X N

NOAA believes that stabilization is thfor long-term restoration. These altereliminated due to the absence of stab

12 X X X Y13 X X X Y

NOAA believes that structural restorastabilization would meet the goals of and that either biological restoration oappropriate.

14 X X X N

NOAA believes that biological restordevelopment would not meet the goacreate to the extent practicable, the pr

15 X X X N

NOAA believes that stabilization is threquirement for long-term restorationbeen eliminated due to the absence of 

16 X X X X Y

NOAA believes that the combination provide a reef closest to the pre-injur
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 2-3

2.1.1 Preferred Alternative: Stabilization of Substrate and Structural Restoration of the

Reef Substrate with Coral Transplantation and Enhanced Biological Restoration

This alternative calls for the stabilization of injured framework with the use of reef modules

and tremie concrete pour, the subsequent addition of precast reef structures placed around

the injury area to mimic the coral colonies destroyed by the grounding, and the use of coral

transplantation and other biological methods to restore the coral community. 

The extensive structural injury caused by the grounding of the M/V Wellwood (cracking of

the underlying reef framework, flattening of the reef relief) has led to extensive impacts on

the habitat and biological resources of the area. This alternative entails construction work,

which would consist of repairing multiple damaged sites using specially formulated concrete,

fiberglass rebar, limestone boulders and pre-fabricated reef modules. Some excavation would

be required to deepen damaged areas to accommodate reef module placement and provide

sufficient concrete for adequate repair. Up to twenty-two reef modules would be constructed

for placement on the reef, to fill the pits that were recently expanded. The stabilization

would bring the pits back up to resemble the surrounding topography and would decrease

the potential for further erosion of the loose substrate surrounding the holes. The choice of

materials and methods being used for the project would be based on NOAA’s extensive

experience with coral reef restoration techniques, in the FKNMS and at other sites. See

Figure 2-1 for a schematic that illustrates this technique.

Limestone boulders and pre-fabricated reef structures would be placed in the injured area

after framework stabilization is complete, and then stabilized with a tremie pour of concrete

around them. The boulders would be designed and stacked so as to recreate the look of and

replace the relief provided by the several large coral colonies that were destroyed by the

grounding vessel. Plastic composite rebar (which is lighter, easier to use, and more durable

than steel) would be placed in the boulders and concrete for improved attachment between

boulder/concrete layers. The sides and surface of each repair structure would include

exposed surfaces of the boulders to enhance the opportunities for benthic recolonization of

the repaired surfaces, as well as holes or openings to provide habitat for cryptic organisms.

Due to the nature and strength of the natural reef material at this particular site, attachment

of the repair structures to the natural reef by rebar would not provide suitable stability. This

repair would depend on the weight of each unit enhanced by direct attachment to the reef by

concrete to provide structural stability in storm events. The design stability evaluation

considered the impact of a severe storm event (i.e., 50-year storm). It should be noted that

something less than 3.5% of the area of the “parking lot” would be covered by repair

structures. This provides ample remaining area for control sites to monitor in evaluating

natural rates of recovery, as recommended by NURC (1993) (see Figure 2-2).
Section 2: Alternatives Being Considered

Page 2-4 April 2002

After physical restoration, biological restoration would occur. This would consist of two

activities: coral transplantation and the use of enhanced biological methods. Although some

extant data (NURC 1997; see Section 3 below) does not provide evidence of convincing

Section 2: Alternatives Being Considered

Page 2-6 April 2002

Figure 2-2, module placement
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 2-7

ecological benefit for transplantation, the NURC study examined only the very small area to

which corals were transplanted shortly after the grounding. Other studies have demonstrated

significant benefits from transplantation (Bowden-Kerby 1997; Hudson and Goodwin 1997).

Regarding the use of enhanced biological methods, such methods are not currently “scaledup” sufficiently to have been used to play a significant role in restoring coral populations.

Thus this restoration project may play a role as a large-scale model in further developing

chemoinductive substrates or “flypapers,” which do have proven efficacy in small field tests

for successful recruitment of larvae on the reef (Morse 1999).

Transplantation would be primarily of small coral colonies. Species transplanted would be

those originally found at the site, but specific numbers of each species would ultimately

depend on the specimens available at the time of transplantation. There are several potential

sources for the corals that would be transplanted, including coral pieces collected during

storms and other small scale groundings and held until restoration is implemented; corals

taken from nearby hardground areas where coral colonies are growing on loose substrate with

little chance for long-term survival; selected coral heads that have been held for culturing,

research or rescue purposes and are now available for return to the reef; and plugs taken from

healthy donors. Except for the plugs, the colonies used for transplantation would not be

taken from donors on surrounding reefs and thus would not increase injury to reef habitat.

 Plugs have been used successfully in the FKNMS and have shown little impact to the donor

colonies. This would ensure that restoration of this site would not be accomplished at the

expense of surrounding habitats.

In addition to the scleractinian corals, gorgonian colonies would also be transplanted. 

Although at least one species of gorgonian (Pseudopterogorgia americana) is common at the

grounding site, slower recruiting gorgonians such as Plexaura spp. and Gorgonia ventalina

were an important component of the original community (Harrigan, 1984; Gittings, 1988) but

are rare now. Thus, these species and others would be candidates for transplantation. The

transplanted colonies may be taken from recently dislodged colonies or clippings may be

taken from local mature colonies without endangering the donor colony.

There are a variety of new biological technologies being used to restore coral populations,

many of them focused on increasing the settlement of coral larvae. The two primary

alternatives that are under consideration for the Wellwood site are the use of “larval flypaper”

and the use of “settlement tents.” The larval flypaper technique (Morse, et al, 1994; Morse

and Morse, 1996) requires the placement of chemical stimuli (metamorphic inducers) on the

reef surface to attract coral larvae. The use of the chemical stimuli increases the likelihood

that coral larvae will settle onto the selected reef location. The settlement tent technique (A.

Szmant, personal communication; S. Gittings, personal communication) uses larvae collected

during spawning events and held in a lab until they are competent to settle (usually a few
Section 2: Alternatives Being Considered

Page 2-8 April 2002

days). These larvae are then introduced into a fine-mesh net enclosure deployed over the

injured area and held for another two or three days until they have settled onto the substrate.

 Constraining the larvae in a tent for a few days over the reef provides greater likelihood of

their settling on the selected reef substrate than if they were free floating and subject to

current and tidal influences. These two techniques take different approaches to capitalizing

on the natural abundance of coral larvae throughout the Keys, with the intent of increasing

the density as well as the species diversity of settlers at a specific site.

The combination of “traditional” transplantation and/or enhanced settlement techniques

would be attempted on less than half the area of the grounding site. This would permit the

continuation of long-term monitoring of natural recovery rates, one of the principal

recommendations of the 1993 NURC workshop cited above (NURC 1993).

Construction materials would be transported to the site by a means deemed feasible by

the contractor selected to do the restoration. Construction would require the use of a

construction barge that would be moored over the site in a manner to prevent collateral

injury to the reef. All operations would be planned and performed according to permit

requirements and the environmental protection plan written for the restoration. This

environmental protection plan would address the protection of land resources, water

resources, air resources, and fish and wildlife resources in the restoration area. Solid

waste and chemical waste generated during the restoration would be transported and

disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. In addition, materials

would be placed in the water according to marine engineers’ specifications in a manner

approved by NOAA before construction. NOAA’s construction contractor would

prepare an environmental protection plan as a requirement of their contract. It would be

reviewed prior to the issuance of the required FKNMS permit, but is not available for the

publication of the Final EA. In addition, the plan would probably be too extensive to

incorporate as an appendix.

1. Transplantation can be conducted from a small dive boat without major construction

equipment or materials. Transplants would be transported to the site (if taken from a

distance) in water-filled buckets, gently placed back into the water, and put in place and

cemented by SCUBA divers. Both Portland Type II cement and Liquid Rock epoxy are

commonly used for scleractinian transplantation throughout the FKNMS (B. Goodwin,

personal communication). Portland Type II cement would be used as part of the project,

as it is for nearly every reef restoration. It has proven to be the most effective for

structural purposes. Limestone – the natural material of the reef itself -- would be used as

“top dressing” so that little or no concrete will be exposed. If needed, Liquid Rock epoxy

would be used for smaller reattachment purposes, as it is for most reef restoration

projects. It has proven to work well in the underwater setting. Gorgonians can be
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 2-9

transplanted using several underwater epoxies. The use of hand tools such as hammers,

picks, or chisels, would also be required. There are no specific construction needs for

enhanced biological methods; the work can be conducted from small dive boats and using

small hand tools in a manner similar to transplantation. These are the two

biological/settlement enhancement techniques likely to be used at the Wellwood site;

however, others are being investigated and may be considered and evaluated at a later date.

All operations would be planned and performed according to permit requirements and the

environmental protection plan written for the structural restoration.

This is NOAA’s preferred alternative because of a combination of factors. 

• Substrate stabilization is vital to any restoration. Restoration of this site without

stabilization has a high likelihood of failure due to the potential for continued erosion of

the underlying substrate. 

• NOAA believes that limited structural restoration is necessary in order to recreate a

habitat that resembles the pre-injury state of the injured reef. This reef area is a

transition zone between a spur and groove habitat and the deeper hard bottom habitats

and occasional massive coral heads are a distinct characteristic of such habitats. Without

the addition of some limited structure, any restoration initiated at this site will remain a

low–relief habitat for the foreseeable future.

• While traditional transplantation will be a viable method at this site, NOAA believes that

the use of innovative biological methods has few, if any, environmental costs, and

potential major benefits to increase recovery of the benthic community. The combination

of biological methods could provide far greater restoration of the reef community than

either method alone.

• It encompasses the recommendations of the coral reef scientists and managers that were

advanced as a result of the workshop convened to consider these issues (NURC 1993).

2.1.2 No Action

Inclusion of the no action alternative is prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations. It serves as a benchmark against which the preferred action can be evaluated.

The no action alternative would leave the reef in its current condition, allowing natural

recovery processes to occur. The no action alternative could have two general outcomes: 

natural recovery on a longer time scale or further deterioration of the reef system. It is

NOAA’s opinion that the no action alternative would result in further deterioration of the
Section 2: Alternatives Being Considered

Page 2-10 April 2002

reef system, due to the previous framework damage and subsequent secondary damage

caused by storms. Hurricane Kate in 1985 scoured the rubble remaining at the site, and the

results of an active storm season in 1998 have further proven this hypothesis to be likely:

 scouring wave action from the Groundhog Day Storm (February) and Hurricane Georges

(September) deepened and expanded the injury site.

2.1.3 Stabilization of Loose Substrate

This alternative calls only for the stabilization of loose substrate and damaged framework as

described in Section 2.1.1. This approach would address the joint concerns of allowing the

existing community to continue development while minimizing additional injury that might

result from further deterioration of the substrate. The purpose of the restoration would be

to fill in the blowholes and to stabilize the now exposed framework cracks to prevent further

expansion of the pits and erosion of the reef substrate. NOAA believes that stabilization is

the minimum restoration required; without stabilization the substrate will continue to erode

and the injury area will enlarge. However, NOAA also believes that stabilization alone is not

sufficient to restore the injury area because it would not restore the area to its original

topography, nor would it provide any increase in biological cover.

2.1.4 Stabilization of Substrate and Structural Restoration of the Reef Substrate

The focus of the restoration effort is on recreating, to the extent practicable, the preexisting

habitat, structure, and surface topographical relief of the former reef. Under this alternative,

the damaged grounding area would be stabilized as described in Section 2.1.1, and then reef

structures and boulders would be placed over the stabilized substrate to create additional

relief and mimic the pre-injury topography, also as described in Section 2.1.1.

Construction would occur as described in Section 2.1.1.

NOAA does not believe that this alternative is sufficient to restore the Wellwood grounding

site. Although the framework would be stabilized for future development of a coral

community and the original topography would be recreated, this alternative would not

provide any restoration of the biological community.

2.1.5 Stabilization of Substrate and Structural Restoration of the Reef Substrate with

Coral Transplantation

This alternative would build upon the construction restoration option described in Section

2.1.4 by requiring the transplantation of corals onto the stabilized substrate and the new reef

structures once construction is completed. This alternative addresses the critical loss of coral
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 2-11

cover caused by the grounding by increasing the coral population and thus jumpstarting the

natural colonization on both the stabilized reef substrate and the new reef structures.

Construction and transplantation would occur as described in Section 2.1.1. All operations

would be planned and performed according to permit requirements and the environmental

protection plan written for the restoration.

NOAA believes that this alternative would be sufficient to restore the site by stabilizing the

substrate, recreating the original topography and initiating the development of a coral

community. However, NOAA does not believe that this is the best alternative possible

because the limited nature of transplanting corals does not recreate a reef ecosystem diverse

in species composition.

2.1.6 Stabilization of Substrate and Structural Restoration of the Reef Substrate with

Enhanced Biological Restoration

This alternative would build upon the construction restoration option described in Section

2.1.4 by using new biological methods to enhance the recruitment of corals onto the

stabilized substrate and the new reef structures once construction is completed. This

alternative addresses the critical loss of coral cover caused by the grounding by enhancing the

settlement of naturally occurring coral larvae and thus jumpstarting the natural colonization

on both the stabilized reef substrate and the new reef structures.

Construction and enhanced biological restoration would occur as described in Section 2.1.1.

 All operations would be planned and performed according to permit requirements and the

environmental protection plan written for the restoration.

NOAA believes that this alternative would be sufficient to restore the site by stabilizing the

substrate, recreating the original topography and initiating the development of a coral

community. However, NOAA does not believe that this is the best alternative possible

because the limited nature of enhanced settlement would require an extended time to

recolonize the area and would result in a community of very similar age range.

2.2 OTHER COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES

Other commercially available restoration technologies commonly used in coastal and offshore

construction projects were also considered as alternatives for restoration of the Wellwood

grounding site. These technologies were evaluated during the planning phases of the earlier

restoration of the Elpis and Maitland grounding sites (NOAA 1995a and 1995b) and again

during the Contship Houston and R/V Columbus Iselin restoration planning processes
Section 2: Alternatives Being Considered

Page 2-12 April 2002

(Waxman and Christensen, 1997; NOAA 1996d, 1999a). In general, they were inappropriate

at the Wellwood site. Because the injury area has limited physical structure one of the main

goals is to create additional relief; these other methods tend to be more appropriate for large

areas of detached rubble. Specific methods were found to be inappropriate for use at the

Wellwood site for a variety of reasons, as described below.

• Concrete-filled pillows, geotextile mattresses, or tubes filled with concrete and fitted onto

the underlying reef structure. These methods are used to protect the perimeter of injured

areas from further deterioration. The pillows, mattresses, or tubes would be constructed

out of reinforced material, such as Kevlar, to add external support and filled with

nonseparable marine concrete. The filling operations are fairly complex and require

concrete preparation on site due to the distance from land. They would have to be filled

on site and require a downhill gradient. Due to the relatively small size of the Wellwood

grounding site, the complexity of installing these pillows is not a cost-effective option.

 This technology was also rejected due to its use of unnatural materials (Kevlar).

• Gabions, prefabricated steel, or tenser grid cages containing loose reef rubble and creating

a flush cap similar to that of the underlying reef. The standard design for gabions

consists of a very sturdy plastic webbed mattress that is filled with gravel, or sand if an

internal filter fabric is used. It is uncertain whether gabions would crush or crack the

underlying reef structure. Gabions are generally considered a temporary measure or

interim relief until a more permanent structure can be constructed. Gabions were rejected

for use at the Wellwood site because of the use of unnatural materials and as technically

infeasibile due to the need for a permanent solution. Also, any potential for additional

framework injury is inappropriate at this site.

• Revetment mats, similar to gabions but providing a semiflexible reef cap. Revetment mats

are concrete blocks, usually 1 foot by 1 foot, interconnected by flexible polypropylene,

kevlar, or similar cables. These mats are usually assembled on land and then installed in

place from a construction platform, using a crane and spreader bar. They are relatively

flexible structures that will conform to the shape of the natural contour. As with gabions,

it is uncertain whether revetment mats would crush or crack the underlying reef structure.

 Revetment mats were used in the restoration of the Contship Houston site in 1997. 

Injury from Hurricane Georges has required some relocation and rearticulation of the mats

at that site as the leading edge of one mat lifted and broke apart; in future uses, the mats

will be more securely fastened to the bottom. Revetment mats were rejected for use at

the Wellwood site due to the relatively small and steep nature of the holes to be filled, the

use of unnatural materials, the lack of rubble berms needing stabilization, and as

inappropriate due to the potential for further framework injury.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 2-13

Although these restoration techniques have proven useful in other locations, the specific

physical needs at the Wellwood site are incompatible with the use of these techniques. They

do not meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action at Molasses Reef and therefore

are not analyzed in detail in this Environmental Assessment.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-1

SECTION 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 LOCATION AND AREA USES

The M/V Wellwood grounding site is located in the vicinity of 25°00’ north latitude, 80°22’

west longitude, offshore of Florida’s Upper Keys (Figure 1-1). The site is approximately

6 nautical miles (11 kilometers) southeast of Key Largo in Monroe County, Florida, and is

within the Key Largo portion of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS).

The Wellwood site is situated in a transition coral community in 6 to 10 meters of water.

Uses of the general area include diving, fishing, snorkeling, and boating. Molasses Reef holds

not only recreational value but also scientific and educational value (NOAA, 2000). Many

scientists view the region as a living laboratory in which numerous scientific studies and

much research are being conducted (UNEP/IUCN 1988). Certain marine species found

within the FKNMS’s boundaries hold commercial or recreational value. These species

include spiny lobster, grouper, mackerel, dolphin, snapper, hogfish, tarpon, pompano, jack,

and bonefish (NOAA 1995b). Although fishing for these species in portions of FKNMS is

allowed, certain restrictions apply, including not using harmful fishing methods such as wire

fish traps (UNEP/IUCN 1988). Molasses Reef itself, including the site of the Wellwood, is

a Sanctuary Preservation Area (SPA) and thus the following activities are prohibited: 

touching coral, anchoring, and discharging anything into the water, and most fishing activities

(NOAA 1996a). Castnet baitfishing is the only type of fishing allowed within the SPA.

3.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE

Molasses Reef is located approximately 6 nautical miles southeast of Key Largo. Key Largo

is predominately zoned for residential and commercial land uses with the exception of a large

portion of land owned by the Florida State Department of Parks in the John Pennekamp

Coral Reef State Park. Land use at the park includes camping areas, a marina with two boat

launching ramps, commercial and administrative buildings, and open space (FDEP, 2000).

Many commercial properties are located on Key Largo, including gas stations, shopping

plazas, boat rentals/charters, bait and tackle shops, dive shops, motels, and restaurants. The

marinas and boat launches in this area serve as gateways for many of the visitors to FKNMS.

3.3 CLIMATE

The Florida Keys are in a subtropical zone moderated by water temperatures. The area is

characterized by warm, humid summers, with abundant rainfall and generally warm,

moderately dry winters. The average annual temperature is 78 oF (26 oC) with an average low
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-2 April 2002

of 69 oF (21 oC) in January and an average high of 85 oF (30 oC) in July. The average annual

rainfall is 39.4 inches (100 centimeters). The heaviest precipitation occurs during the

summer and early to mid-autumn. Winds average 10 nautical miles (19 kilometers) per hour.

The prevailing wind direction is from the east-southeast during the summer and from the

northeast during the winter. Winds are typically strongest during the winter months and

calmest in the spring and autumn. The hurricane season is from June to November, with the

peak threat existing from mid-August to late October (NWS, 1994).

3.4 AIR QUALITY

3.4.1 Ambient Air Quality Conditions

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set for six criteria pollutants

(sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, lead, and inhalable particulate

matter). The problems associated with the pollutants carbon monoxide and inhalable

particulate matter are usually related to localized conditions, such as congested traffic

intersections or construction activities. The other criteria pollutants are associated with more

regionalized problems that result from the interactions of pollutants from a great number of

widely dispersed sources (e.g., a large city containing many stationary and mobile sources).

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) monitors the concentrations

of the criteria pollutants and, where necessary, is responsible for developing State

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to ensure that the national standards are achieved and

maintained. Areas within the state that fail to meet the NAAQS are designated as

“nonattainment areas” and are potentially subject to regulatory enforcement. The Wellwood

site is located in Monroe County, which is classified as being in complete attainment of the

NAAQS as of August 1999 (USEPA, 2000).

3.4.2 Air Pollutant Emissions at Molasses Reef

No significant direct or indirect sources of air pollutant emissions are currently located in the

immediate vicinity of Molasses Reef. The principal emission source in the vicinity of

Molasses Reef is motorboat traffic. Although the number of boats arriving at FKNMS is

relatively large, the boats are insufficient in number to cause a significant change in local or

regional air quality.

3.4.3 Regional Air Pollutant Emission Summary

No large point sources of air pollution that would affect local air quality are present within

30 miles (48 kilometers) of Molasses Reef. Large emission sources on the Florida mainland

do not appear to be positioned to affect local air quality consistently. The prevailing wind
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-3

patterns are such that air masses passing over the Keys from the Gulf of Mexico or the

Atlantic Ocean do not first pass over the mainland. This diminishes the potential for distant

emission sources to affect local air quality (NCDC, 1999).

3.5 NOISE

Noise at Molasses Reef predominately originates from recreational activities of boaters,

particularly during the day as boaters approach and leave the moorings in the sanctuary. 

There are no other significant noise sources in the Molasses Reef area aside from natural

wind and wave action or occasional aircraft. Given its location approximately 6 nautical

miles (11 kilometers) offshore from the nearest land mass, noise from shore (e.g., traffic on

U.S. Route 1) has no impact on ambient noise levels in the vicinity of Molasses Reef. 

Conversely, the noise of motorboat traffic around Molasses Reef is insufficient to affect any

shoreside residences. Boats visiting FKNMS that depart from and return to shoreside

locations may occasionally create annoying noise levels for residents.

3.6 GEOLOGY

Molasses Reef is a bank reef lying near the southern edge of the Florida Plateau, a large

carbonate platform composed of carbonate marine sediments approximately 7,000 meters in

thickness. The plateau includes all of Florida and the adjacent continental shelves of the Gulf

of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The platform has been an area of shallow water carbonate

deposition since at least the Jurassic period (136 to 190 million years ago). Sediments

accumulating in the area for 150 million years have been structurally modified by subsidence

and sea level rise (Continental Shelf Associates, 1990).

Sea level fluctuations attributed to glaciation are largely responsible for the present

morphology of the area. Sea level dropped by 100 meters during the Wisconsonian

glaciation, exposing the entire platform to marine and subaerial erosion. Sea level began to

rise again approximately 15,000 years ago, flooding the area and forming the current

physiographic character of the region.

Molasses Reef, which is part of the Florida Reef Tract, exhibits features representing two

distinct geological origins. An older, deeper reef developed on a former shoreline and exhibits

spurs and grooves that probably represent erosional features that developed along a previous

shoreline. In contrast, the shallower active reef has formed more than 5 meters of carbonate

sand, primarily from the limestone-fixing algae Halimeda. Accretion of the shallower reef

was slowed considerably due to an extensive die-off of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata)

starting a few years ago.
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-4 April 2002

3.6.1 Geological Resources at the Grounding Site

The framework of most reefs consists not of a solid limestone layer, but instead a thin veneer

of reef rubble cemented together under which is a loose consolidation of reef rubble. Under

the unconsolidated layer the framework becomes firmly cemented together once again. The

primary reef damage from the Wellwood consisted of fracturing that veneer through several

days of resting and pounding on the substrate; this exposed the underlying reef rubble to

increased erosion from water movement. Immediately after the grounding 50 percent (644

square meters) of the injured area showed signs of framework damage (Hudson & Diaz,

1988). Framework damage included cracked, crushed, split or otherwise mechanically altered

reef substrate.

There has been no significant consolidation of damaged framework since the grounding, thus

the area today contains that same area of framework damage as well as additional injury

resulting from subsequent storms and other physical disturbances.

3.7 WATER RESOURCES

3.7.1 Water Quality

Reef-building corals require warm, clear water, low nutrient levels, and frequent and relatively

strong ocean currents. Coral reefs cannot withstand continued exposure to water

temperatures colder than 18 oC (68 oF) or warmer than 30 oC (86 oF). They are seldom found

in continually turbid water. Most importantly, corals cannot tolerate great changes in water

quality for prolonged periods of time. Such environments are primarily found 25 degrees

north and south of the equator. Molasses Reef’s exposure to open ocean circulation of

warm, relatively low nutrient Gulf Stream waters and protection from the turbidity, high

nutrient levels, rapidly fluctuating temperature, and salinity of Florida Bay waters provide

for a favorable environment for reef-building corals.

Table 3-1 provides details of water quality characteristics recorded in the Molasses Reef

area. With few exceptions, the water quality in and around Molasses Reef is good, although

phosphorus levels have been on the increase over the past 5 years (Jones and Boyer 1999).

3.7.2 Physical Parameters

Currents. FKNMS is part of an open-ended environment influenced by the Caribbean Sea,

Gulf of Mexico, and Florida Bay. The Straits of Florida lie to the south of the reef tract and

Hawk Channel lies between the reef tract and the islands of the Florida Keys. A complex

system of currents runs through these bodies of water. The most prominent current affecting
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-5

Molasses Reef is the Florida Current (Figure 3-1). The Florida Current is a surface current

(less than 400 meters deep) that flows east and then north offshore of the Florida Keys. 

This current results from the combination of the Loop Current coming from the eastern

portion of the Gulf of Mexico and the Yucatan Current. The Florida Current eventually

becomes the Gulf Stream off the southeastern United States (Chiappone, 1996a). 

The Florida Current is far enough offshore from Molasses Reef to have only a relatively

small moderating effect. The effect is a north-flowing current on the seaward side of

Molasses Reef moving at 4 centimeters per second (Lee et al., 1992). Fluctuations of flow

and distance from the Florida Current can have periodic effects on Molasses Reef. These

fluctuations are characterized by horizontal meanders and cyclonic, cold core frontal eddies.

Meanders are low-frequency current fluctuations that appear as northward-flowing waves.

The eddies are periodic reversals of the current and transport Florida Current waters into

coastal waters.

Table 3-1. Water quality characteristics of bottom water in the vicinity of Molasses Reef

(Medians of samples taken quarterly from 1995-1999)

Parameter Range

Salinity, ppt 36.1

Temperature, oC 25.6

Dissolved oxygen, sat (%) 93.8

Si(OH)4 0.284

Nitrate, μM 0.060

Nitrite, μM 0.037

NH4, μM 0.295

Total dissolved phosphorus

concentration, μM 0.157

PO4, μM 0.007

Chlorophyll a, μg/L (at surface) 0.202

Source: Jones and Boyer 1999

μM = micro molarity

μg/L = micrograms per liter

Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-7

A periodic water circulation feature referred to as the Pourtales Gyre has been documented

off the Florida Keys. This cold cyclonic gyre is associated with the Pourtales Terrace, a

topographic feature composed of a 200- to 300-meter platform in the middle and lower

Keys. The gyre forms during fluctuations of the Florida Current where it meanders inshore

toward Molasses Reef. It results in the periodic upwelling in nutrients and localization of

plankton (Lee et al., 1992). The Pourtales Gyre forms for approximately 1 to 2 months and

occurs mainly in the winter and spring (Lee et al., 1994).

Wind blowing over the surface of the water can induce wind-driven currents. Circulation

within Hawk Channel is dominated by wind-driven currents which are characteristic of the

Florida Keys because shallow depths prevail throughout the area (Schomer and Drew, 1982).

Tides. Tides in the Florida Keys generally exhibit two highs and two lows of uneven

amplitude (height) per tidal day (Schomer and Drew, 1982). The tidal range decreases from

Fowey Rocks in the upper Florida Keys to Sand Key off of Key West. Tides in the

Molasses Reef area vary approximately 0.6 to 0.8 meter. The highest observed water level

in the area was recorded at Ocean Reef Harbor, on the north end of Key Largo at 1.1 meters

based on the mean lower low water (MLLW) level in 1975; the lowest observed tide was

measured at Point Charles in Hawk Channel, at 0.5 meter below MLLW in 1979 (NOAA,

1999c). The major effect of tides on reef communities is the reduction of water depth during

spring low tides when shallow reef flats may be close to or above the water’s surface.

Tidal currents reverse in direction with the ebb and flow of tides. These currents show a

slight westward component, especially in the middle and lower Florida Keys (Enos, 1997;

Smith, 1991). However, recent studies indicate that there is a long-term net flow from

Florida Bay/Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean (Pitts, 1994; Smith, 1994). Tidal current

velocities range from 5 to 15 centimeters per second, but velocities as high as 130 centimeters

per second have been recorded.

3.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.8.1 Communities in the Vicinity

Coral reefs are complex and diverse ecosystems found in the tropics and subtropics where

environmental conditions are relatively constant and not prone to large or frequent

fluctuations. They are composed of concentrated complexes of corals and other similar

organisms that, given the availability of suitable substratum, temperature, light, and limited

sedimentation, construct a limestone structure in shallow water (Jaap, 1984).
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-8 April 2002

The Florida Reef Tract is the third largest barrier reef system in the world. This reef tract

consists of four discernible types of coral communities that occur in a generally seaward

progression: hard bottom communities, patch reefs, transitional reefs, and bank reefs (Jaap,

1984). The relief, or height above the bottom, and the dominance of stony corals as a

structural element also increase in a seaward progression. Molasses Reef is a bank reef.

The most diverse coral communities of FKNMS are on bank reefs, elongated structures

located near the abrupt change in bottom slope that marks the seaward edge of the Floridian

Plateau. They occur mostly at a depth of 5 to 10 meters (Jaap, 1984). Distinctive

characteristics of these reefs include vertical zonation of coral communities by depth, the

presence of seaward spur and groove formations, and in many cases the presence of

Acropora palmata (Jaap, 1984; Wheaton and Jaap, 1988). A. palmata became the primary

spur builder at Molasses Reef 800 to 1,000 years ago (Chiappone, 1996b; Shinn et al., 1981).

 The large size often attained by multibranched A. palmata colonies attracts large schools of

snappers, grunts, and other species of fish that seek structure for shelter. A. palmata uses

fragmentation recruitment to exploit spatial resources, and broken branches would grow

rapidly to form new colonies (Wheaton and Jaap, 1988).

Communities at Molasses Reef from inshore to offshore are seagrass flats, reef flat (mostly

rubble), spur and groove, buttress zone, mixed hardgrounds and sediments, and slope

platform (Chiappone, 1996b). The seagrass flats, which rarely exceed 3 to 4 meters in depth,

are covered by the seagrasses Thalasia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme and sand-filled

blowouts. Overhanging ledges are formed in some of the deeper holes by the rhizomes and

roots of the seagrasses. The queen conch, Strombus gigas, inhabits this area, as do isolated

brain and star coral colonies of Diploria clivosa and Montastraea complex, respectively; A.

palmata; the sea fan Gorgonia ventalina; and the sea whip Pterogorgia anceps. 

The back reef, located at a depth of 6 meters, is a marginally developed area consisting of

isolated coral colonies but dominated by the octocorals Plexaura flexuosa and Eunicea

succinea and the fire coral Millepora alcicornis (Chiappone, 1996b). The dominant algae are

large frondose species such as Laurencia, Dictyota, Sargassum, Liagora, and Acanthophora.

Octocorals and stony corals become more prevalent in the transition from a relatively flat,

high-energy, shallow reef to an elevated three-dimensional system where the increased depth

and spatial diversity increase the availability of niches. In this transitional zone, A. palmata

occurs on top and Agaricia agaricites (lettuce coral), is prolific on the vertical faces of the

spurs (Wheaton and Jaap, 1988). Octocorals become more abundant, with the number of

species doubling compared to the preceding shallower zone. Sheets of Palythoa caribbea are

replaced by small, isolated mats, and M. complanata remains moderately abundant. The
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-9

grounding occurred in the offshore transition zone between the spur and groove reef and the

deeper low relief hardground.

The dominant algal species in the spur and groove community consists of nonarticulated

coralline algae (Porolithon, Hydrolithon, Lithophyllum) and filamentous forms (Wrangelia,

Ceramium, Centroceras, and Polysiphonia). 

Throughout the Florida Keys, coral reefs in the past decade have experienced an overall

decline in health as they are stressed by numerous natural and man-made phenomena. The

Wellwood grounding area is not the lush Acropora reef it once was, and indeed is now

populated by a large number of dead or dying Acropora communities. However, the corals

that exist in the area, whether living or dead, continue to provide habitat for other reef

communities and a certain level of biological function. Regardless of whether the coral

community injured by the Wellwood would today be a living or dead reef, it would continue

to provide habitat and other biological functions to the reef community, and it is those

biological functions that NOAA aims to restore.

3.8.2 Other Benthic Organisms

The stratification of resources and space found in the community structure of coral reefs has

similarities to that of rain forests (i.e., canopy, understory, and substory) (Continental Shelf

Associates, Inc., 1990). The physical structure built by the corals provides the community's

foundation and represents the canopy. Living within this structure is a complex and diverse

assemblage of infaunal and epifaunal species that is another essential component of the reef

environment.

The understory comprises photosynthetic organisms, such as algae, sponges, ascidians, and

foraminfera that contain algal symbionts, which contribute to the organic productivity of the

reef and benefit from nutrients brought to the reef by mobile organisms (Continental Shelf

Associates, Inc., 1990). Epibenthic organisms such as polychaetes and bryozoans dwell on

the dead portions of the coral reefs.

The substory is composed of cryptofauna, which live within the structural framework of the

reef. Crustaceans, molluscs, ophiuroid (brittle stars) and crinoid (feather stars) echinoderms,

fish, and polychaete and sipunculid worms inhabit the smaller caves and spaces within the

reef. Larger caves and excavations are inhabited by fish, crabs, and lobsters and provide

surfaces on and within the reef for sessile organisms like sponges, bryozoans, ascidians, and

serpulid worms (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1990).
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-10 April 2002

Besides corals, algae and sponges are the organisms most critical to the reef community

(Jaap, 1984). Four groups of benthic algae are found on coral reefs: crustose coralline algae,

which encrust corals, reef rock, and other limestone skeletal material; filamentous and fleshy

algae, which can be either sparse or dense depending on grazing pressure and nutrient levels;

algae on unconsolidated sediments, which are erect macroalgae and mats of blue-green algae;

and excavating or boring algae (Jaap, 1984).

Sponges are a major competitor for space on reefs and some have great overgrowth

capability. Sponges play an important role in reef ecosystems by providing shelter and food

for other reef organisms, and they are a major force in the bioerosional process on reefs (Jaap,

1984).

3.8.3 Fish Populations

Tropical coral reefs exhibit rich fish species diversity. Reef fish assemblages are typically

associated with highly diverse coralline or hard-bottom habitats and have a high number of

species within a relatively small spatial dimension (Chiappone and Sluka, 1996), although

hard-bottom habitats tend to have lower species diversity than the more complex reef

habitats. General characteristics of reef fish assemblages include individuals that are

territorial and will strongly defend a particular site; mutualistic interspecific associations,

such as cleaning stations; and Batesian mimicry, in which one inoffensive species mimics

another noxious or dangerous species. Most reef fishes are highly sedentary, and even the

larger predatory species such as snappers and groupers tend to be very reef-specific, rarely

traveling far from the reef except for spawning (Chiappone and Sluka, 1996). Over 500 fish

species have been recorded within the FKNMS.

3.8.4 Endangered and Threatened Species

Several species of turtles and marine mammals in the FKNMS have been listed as federally

endangered species. Although not permanent residents of Molasses Reef, some are known

to occur in or travel through the area during seasonal migrations. Federally endangered

species of sea turtles that might be visitors to the reef include the leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys

kempii), and hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). In addition, the loggerhead turtle

(Caretta caretta), listed federally as threatened, can also be a seasonal visitor. Marine turtles

are provided protection through Florida’s Marine Turtle Protection Act and the federal

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) (Appendix

B).
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-11

Endangered or threatened marine mammals that might occur in the area include the West

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), a species indigenous to the FKNMS, as well as the

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), right whale (Balaena glacialis), blue whale

(Balaenoptera musculus), finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Sei whale (Balaenoptera

borealis), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Marine mammals are protected under

the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §1361), as well as the ESA of 1973.

Table 3-2. Endangered and threatened species occurrence in the Florida Keys.

Species Approximate Time of Occurrence

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) April to July

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) June to September

Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) April to June

Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) July to October

Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) April to June

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) year-round depending on the temperature and

distribution of seagrasses

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Winter

Right whale (Balaena glacialis) Winter

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Winter

Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Winter

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Unknown

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) stranding record, but generally uncommon in

water less than 300 meters deep

Sources: Lott, 1996; NMFS, no date a, no date b.

As stated previously, the federally listed species of turtles and marine mammals are not

residents of Molasses Reef, but rather are known to occur in or travel through the area during

seasonal migrations (see Table 3-2). The annual sea turtle nesting and hatching season in

Monroe County, Florida, is considered to be April 15 to October 31. Although turtles might

feed while in the vicinity of the reef, they have no specific dependence on it. Generally,

marine mammals (other than manatees) might pass through the area during the winter

months, but they do not depend on the reef for food, shelter, or necessary mating habitat

(Lott, 1996). In Monroe County, manatees range from upper Key Largo to Key West and

generally inhabit canals, creeks, and surrounding waters throughout the year (NOAA,

1996b).
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-12 April 2002

3.8.5 Biological Resources at the Grounding Site

The Wellwood grounded in the transition zone between the shallow upper forereef (just

seaward of the A. palmata reef crest) and a deeper forereef zone that is dominated by large

head corals (see section 3.8.1). The habitat was primarily moderate to low-relief, but

included numerous large heads of boulder corals and had a diverse community of hard and

soft corals and other benthic organisms. The principal coral species present at the site

included Montastrea complex, A. palmata, D. cylindrus, A. agaricites, Diploria spp., C.

natans, P. astreoides, Favia fragrum, Meandrina meandrites, and Dichocoenia stoksii. 

Cover also included a healthy gorgonian community, including many sea fans (G. ventalina)

and sea rods, the zoanthid P. caribbea, and fire coral, Millepora spp. In addition to direct

physical damage from the vessel, many individuals under the vessel’s hull were seriously

damaged due to shading and subsequent tissue death. The dominant species injured in the

deeper forereef zone during the salvage operations included the large basket sponge

Xestospongia muta, large Montastrea complex colonies, and many octocorals. Coral loss over

the entire area was estimated to include the complete destruction of at least 21 large (1- to

2-meter diameter) colonies of Montastrea complex, four colonies of D. cylindrus (a rare

species), and 6 large colonies of other coral species, as well as grazing, abrasion, toppling or

other injuries to many other colonies

The grounding site today consists of a low-relief area with scattered small (no greater than

25 cm diameter) coral colonies, including Agaricia spp., Porites spp., M. meandrites,

Millepora spp., and large numbers of octocorals, primarily Pseudopterogorgia americana,

as well as scattered colonies of other sea rods. The substratum is virtually devoid of other

sedentary invertebrates but has an algae community. Some cryptofauna is present, although

the increasing instability of the blowhole areas makes colonization in some areas unlikely.

Topographic complexity of the grounding site closely resembles that of nearby hardground

sites, and is significantly less complex than at surrounding undamaged Molasses Reef spur

and groove reference sites (NURC 1997). (Note: all data presented in this and the following

2 paragraphs are from the NURC 1997 report.) The percent cover of hard corals at the site

is on the order of 1%, while at 6 spur and groove reference sites the median percent cover is

approximately 5%. Hard coral colony counts per transect are significantly lower at the

grounding site (again closely resembling hardground) than at the spur and groove sites.

Percent cover of 3 encrusting cnidarians (2 gorgonians and a zoanthid) while highly variable

at all sites, is generally lower at the grounding and hardground sites than at the undamaged

reef sites. In contrast, colony counts per transect of erect gorgonians is not significantly

different between the spur and groove and grounding sites, while counts at both are

significantly higher than on hardground. There are no significant differences among the 3

types of sites for either sponge cover or sponge colony counts per transect. The combined
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-13

cover of macroalgae and thick algal turfs is highest at the hardground sites, slightly lower at

the grounding site, and substantially lower at the undamaged reef. Not surprisingly, the cover

of fine algal turfs, crustose coralline algae, and bare space showed the opposite trend: cover

was lowest in the hardground sites, somewhat higher in the grounding site, and highest in the

spur and groove sites, with the differences being significant.

Patterns of coral recruitment and juvenile coral mortality were also assessed during the

NURC study, to determine the state of recovery of the grounding area and determine if the

site was returning to a spur and groove type reef or changing to a hardground type reef. The

same grounding sites and reference areas (both hardground and spur and groove) referred to

above were examined. Coral recruitment rates were low (1-6 m-2 yr-1) and not significantly

different between sites or reef types. Juvenile coral mortality took place at all sites over the

study period. However, this mortality was significantly higher within the grounding sites and

the spur and groove zone, compared to the hardground sites. The study also indicated that

juvenile coral abundance was significantly higher (6-8 per m2 ) at the grounding sites and the

spur and groove sites compared to the hardground sites (2-3 per m2). A portion of the

grounding site at which transplantation had occurred shortly after the incident (known as

“Harold’s Garden”) appeared to have fewer juvenile corals than other areas in the grounding

site. However, this area is limited in size and the reduced juvenile populations may reflect

spatial variation in juvenile coral density within the grounding site. Overall the dynamics of

juvenile coral populations at the grounding site appeared to be more similar to spur and

groove than hardground communities. The disparity, as compared to the remainder of the

benthic community, probably results from the narrow focus of the project on juvenile corals.

The fish community at the Wellwood grounding site is that of a hardground community, with

low diversity and low abundance parameters. Hardground areas and the grounding site have

similar numbers of fish per transect, and that mean number is about half that for spur and

groove sites. Likewise, the mean numbers of species found at hardground and the grounding

sites are nearly identical, and is about half the species richness found at spur and groove

sites. As far as species composition is concerned, while fish assemblages on hardground and

the grounding site are quite similar to each other, they are quite different from the

assemblages to be found on the reference undamaged reefs. Inspection of actual species lists

indicates that the differences in species composition between spur and groove assemblages

versus grounding site (and very similar hardground) assemblages are not due to the strict

restriction of some species to a particular habitat. Very few of the observed species are seen

exclusively on one habitat type—and most of those found on only one type of habitat are

uncommon to rare in the others. Rather, there are many species that are more common on the

structurally complex spur and groove sites than on the relatively flat hardground and

grounding sites or vice versa.
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-14 April 2002

3.9 INFRASTRUCTURE (Construction and Vessel Moorings)

3.9.1 Mooring Facilities

The Mooring Buoy Action Plan of the FKNMS Management Plan is one of the simplest and

most effective management tools used to protect FKNMS resources. The FKNMS staff

initiated the reef mooring buoy system used on coral reefs throughout the Keys in 1981. The

mooring buoy system was established to provide a location for small- to medium-sized boats

to be secured when visiting the reef and to reduce the potential for damage to coral from boat

anchors, as well as chafing of corals from anchor ropes and chains. 

Twenty-eight mooring buoys are located on Molasses Reef (Figure 3-2). Mooring buoys

numbered M11 and M12 are adjacent to the grounding site; M12 is closest at 50 meters

southwest of the spar buoy that marks the injured area. The other buoys are arrayed by

depth: buoys numbered M1-M18 are in 5-8 meters; buoys numbered M19-M25 are in 8–11

meters; and buoys numbered M26-M28 are in 13-18 meters (NOAA, 2000). A mooring

buoy south of the injured area was removed and its anchor pin permanently damaged by the

Wellwood on its inbound track; this buoy was never replaced, in part because the area was

off-limits for several years after the grounding to allow recovery and research.

3.9.2 Transport Facilities

U.S. Route 1 is the only major roadway providing access from the south Florida mainland

to the Keys. The roadway varies between two and four lanes. There are numerous marinas

throughout Key Largo and the rest of the Keys that provide access to boat traffic from the

south Florida mainland. 

The contractor will load the construction barge and mobilize their equipment, boulders and

materials, from the Miami area, then proceed by water to the construction site. The

contractor will move the reef modules from Key Largo to Miami via a flatbed truck. There

will not be a local shore-side location for operations support. FKNMS staff will use their

normal dockage during the project.

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.10.1 Background

The Florida Keys region is considered to have excellent potential for human and animal

remains that are between 12,000 and 15,000 years old based on terrestrial archaeological

studies conducted over the past 30 years. In 1991, a 600-meter-diameter sinkhole that is
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-15

considered to potentially contain Pleistocene archaeological sites was found off Key Largo

at a depth of 10 meters. Due to the location of the sinkhole and its steep banks, the sinkhole

is a likely candidate for containing human remains. In addition, the sinkhole is filled with

impenetrable lime muds thought to preserve any remains contained within (NOAA, 1996b).

European contact in the Florida Keys began with Spanish explorers in the 1500s. Spanish

control of the Florida Keys region lasted into the 1700s. During this period, the Spanish

established a chain of missionaries across what is now known as the state of Florida and also

Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-17

established a small but prosperous maritime trade network based in Cuba. In addition to the

maritime trade network, the number of ships increased in the Florida Keys as other European

countries began to travel back and forth to their colonies in the Americas. The shipping

industry had a dramatic increase in volume during the period of 1700 to 1820 as trade and

maritime technology made great advances. From 1820 to 1865, coastal commerce continued

to grow, and coastal forts were constructed to defend the nation’s southern boundary,

particularly during the Civil War. This time period was also marked by the Seminole wars.

The Seminoles were the predominant Native American group in the area before complete

Euro-American settlement. From 1865 to 1912, various coastal ports began to flourish in

Florida, a system of lighthouses was developed to aid in coastal navigation, and the American

Merchant Marines and the modern Navy were established. Also during that time, wreckers

began to salvage cargos from ships that had run aground on the Florida reef tract (NOAA,

1996b).

3.10.2 Historic Resources in the Florida Keys Region

Because the Florida Keys are located on important trade routes, shipwrecks have occurred

in the area for centuries. The shallow waters in the area, the sporadically occurring coral

reefs, and a low land profile have also contributed to a large number of shipwrecks in the

Keys region. Historically, Spanish ships dominated the waters in the Keys. Hurricanes,

reefs, and military conflicts claimed hundreds of Spanish ships; in some cases, entire fleets

were lost in the area (NOAA, 1996b).

Extensive databases have been developed to identify shipwrecks in the Florida Keys region.

There is evidence of several shipwrecks in the area of Molasses Reef, but there are few

identifiable vessels. The majority of wreck material in the area consists of various anchor,

ballast, windlass, and other vessel parts, dating from the 17th century up through modern

times. Named shipwrecks in the area include the Three Sisters Wreck (no date), and the

USCG Bibb and Duane (20th Century) (Hayes, 1997). Salvage operations for shipwrecks

began as early as the mid-1500s. Various groups (e.g., Spaniards, French, Dutch, English,

Calusa Indians) are documented to have attempted recovery of vessels lost in the Keys

(NOAA, 1996b).

Because of the numerous shipwrecks, many lighthouses have been constructed in the Keys

region. Approximately 16 lighthouses are located within or near the FKNMS. Three of the

lighthouses are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Of the existing lighthouses

in the Sanctuary, some are built directly on the reef. The first of six original lighthouses

constructed on the reef was begun in 1852. Other significant historical reef lighthouses

include Carysfort Reef Light (1852), Sand Key Light (1853), Sombrero Key Light (1858),
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-18 April 2002

Alligator Reef Light (1873), Fowey Rocks Light (1878), and American Shoal Light (1880)

(NOAA, 1996b). None of the lighthouses are situated on Molasses Reef.

3.10.3 Previous Historic Resource Investigations at the Site

No artifacts were found during the response to the grounding or the salvage efforts. 

However, a cultural resources survey that was conducted at the Wellwood grounding site in

August 2001 located five areas containing shipwreck debris (Tidewater Atlantic Research,

Inc. 2001) but none are directly in the restoration area. Each area reflects the general patterns

of trade and transportation typical of the Keys, although none can be positively associated

with a specific vessel (TAR, 2001). In addition, there are several cultural resources sites

elsewhere within the Molasses Reef area, although none are located within the immediate

vicinity of the injured area (Hayes, 1997).

3.11 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Hazardous and toxic substances typically include (1) inventoriable materials currently used

as part of day-to-day manufacturing operations, (2) regulated substances such as asbestos

and lead-based paints, and (3) any improperly disposed-of materials such as spilled or buried

hazardous waste. None of these issues are encountered at Molasses Reef due to its offshore

location. In fact, there are no Superfund sites located in Monroe County. The United States

Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) database indicates only one nearby Emergency

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 Toxic Release Site in

Marathon, the Royal Palm Ice Plant, from which there has not been a reported release since

1988 (USEPA, 1999b). Accordingly, the environment around Molasses Reef is lacking any

known significant quantities of hazardous materials or substances.

3.12 SOCIOECONOMICS

3.12.1 Region of Influence

The socioeconomic indicators described in this section include regional economic activity,

employment statistics, and demographics. These indicators characterize the region of

influence (ROI).

An ROI is a geographic area selected as a basis on which the social and economic impacts of

projects are analyzed. The ROI is the area most affected by changes resulting from project

implementation and is usually based on where project employees reside, local commuting and

purchasing patterns, and the size and scope of the proposed project. Typically, a county

is the smallest unit of analysis for an ROI. Because the proposed activity is relatively
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 3-19

limited in scope and will involve few workers over a short period, the ROI for the social and

economic environment is defined as Monroe County, Florida. Furthermore, the inclusion of

other surrounding counties such as Broward and Dade counties, whose populations and

economies are substantially larger than those of Monroe County, would significantly dilute

any positive or negative effects of the proposed project.

3.12.2 Regional Economic Activity

In 1996, employment in the ROI was exclusively nonagricultural. The primary sources of

employment were services, retail trade, and government enterprises. As shown in Table 3-3,

these sectors accounted for more than 75 percent of the county’s total employment.

Table 3-3. ROI employment by major sectors

Employment Sector Percent of Total Employment

Services 34.2

Retail and Wholesale Trade 26.8

Government Enterprises 15.2

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 7.0

Construction 6.5

Agricultural Services, Forestry, Other 4.2

Transportation 4.2

Manufacturing 1.5

Mining 0.3

Source: U.S. DOC, 1998.

The economy of Monroe County is heavily dependent on tourism. In 1996, proprietors’

employment accounted for more than 21 percent of the county’s total employment,

compared to 14.5 percent for Florida and 16.4 percent for the United States (U.S. DOC,

1998). This statistic indicates the central importance of small businesses in the tourist

economy. In fact, a recent study estimated that tourist/recreational activities provided more

than 46 percent of the county’s employment and about 60 percent of the county’s total

economic output (English et al., 1996). Consistent with these statistics, four of the six

largest employers in the county are tourism-related. 
Section 3: Affected Environment

Page 3-20 April 2002

In 1990 about two million tourists visited the Keys, totaling about 13 million visitor days,

with a direct spending impact of almost $800 million. Total gross sales amounted to

approximately $1.6 billion (NOAA, 1996b). In addition, a significant number of retired

persons live in Monroe County, generating a large amount of income in transfer payments

flowing into the local economy in the form of pensions, retirement pay, dividends and

interest on investments, and social security. In 1997 an estimated 16 percent of the total

population was 65 years of age or older, compared to 13 percent for the United States. This

creates a base of income in Monroe County that is independent of employment. In 1996,

Monroe had a per capita personal income of $28,959, which ranked seventh in the state and

was 120 percent of the state average ($24,198) and 119 percent of the national average

($24,436).

The military and the commercial fishing industry are also important sectors of the region’s

economy. The unemployment rate for Monroe County was 2.7 percent in 1996, compared

to 5.3 percent for the United States. It should be noted that much of the employment is

seasonal and rates vary during the year.

3.12.3 Demographics

In 1997, the population of Monroe County was estimated at 82,684, an increase of 6 percent

since 1990. The population grew almost 30 percent between 1980 and 1990, an annual rate

of almost 3 percent. The population is projected to continue to grow albeit at a slower rate.

The population is projected to reach more than 101,000 by 2010, a 1.5 percent growth rate.

As noted above, the county has a large population of retirees. Table 3-4 shows the

racial/ethnic breakdown of the population estimates for 1997.

Peak tourist populations occur from January to March of each year. The tourist season is

longer in the Upper Keys than in the Lower Keys, extending from January to August, and

is based on weekend tourists from Miami and South Florida. The functional population (the

sum of the peak seasonal and resident population) was 134,600 in 1990 (NOAA, 1996b).

 The seasonal population accounts for nearly 42 percent of the functional population during

the peak tourist season.

3.13 QUALITY OF LIFE

One of the most valued aspects of the Molasses Reef ROI is its natural aesthetic beauty. 

Many people have moved to this area to enjoy the bountiful natural resources. The quality

of life of the local residents depends on the condition of the coral reef ecosystem. Thousands

of tourists come to the region each year to enjoy recreational fishing, snorkeling, and diving

around the reef’s ecosystem. Tourism is a major part of the economy and supports local
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 4-1

SECTION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED

AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The alternatives analysis describes the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of

implementing each alternative. The alternatives considered are summarized in Table 4-1. 

The preferred alternative is intended to restore a component of the structural relief of the reef

at the grounding site to as close to its preexisting natural condition as practicable. The focus

of the preferred alternative is to recreate preexisting habitat, structure, and surface

topographical relief, and then to transplant corals to reestablish a coral community, and to

enhance the recruitment of corals. This restoration would allow the recolonization of the area

by benthic and associated reef species.

The direct and indirect effects of each alternative are discussed with respect to 13 resource

categories. The effects (adverse or beneficial) or lack thereof, are described according to

duration (short-term or long-term) and intensity (minor or major). Table 4-2 summarizes the

impacts associated with each alternative.

4.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: Substrate Stabilization, Structural Restoration, Coral

Transplantation and Enhanced Biological Restoration

4.2.1 Location and Area Use

Direct Effects. Long-term major beneficial effects would be expected. Restoration of the

reef would restore the ecosystem and increase its habitat value. Restoration would increase

the number of people using the immediate area for recreational diving and snorkeling.

The type of restoration planned (a relatively small percentage of the damaged area) would

provide a control for natural recovery, adding value for scientific study. NOAA

determined that only a small portion of the injured reef should be restored, for several

reasons. First, it has been 18 years since the grounding incident occurred and the site, as

well as the surrounding area, has changed from their condition immediately following the

grounding. It is not possible to restore the site to its original pre-grounding condition. 

Second, the research community has conducted a significant amount of monitoring and

research effort at the site in the interim, so portions of the site serve the purpose of

demonstrating the natural recovery of an un-restored area. NOAA is still committed to

stabilizing portions of the site because otherwise it would continue to deteriorate, and to

restoring some of the vertical relief to increase habitat at the site.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 5-1

SECTION 5. REGULATORY REVIEW

The implementation of the preferred restoration alternative would require that NOAA obtain

proper work permits, comply with the provisions of federal and state regulations, and notify

appropriate organizations before conducting any restoration activity. To prepare for

implementation in a timely manner, NOAA has initiated efforts to meet these requirements.

 The requirements are briefly described below, and the supporting documentation is enclosed

as Appendices A, B, D, and E.

5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that environmental information on

the project has been compiled. The environmental assessment that must be completed in

accordance with NEPA is provided in the form of this document. It assists in determining

whether the proposed major federal action will have significant impacts on the quality of the

human environment. Relevant sections of NEPA are provided in Appendix D.

5.2 National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq., as amended)

As required by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (also known as Title III of the

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972), NOAA will expend the

settlement monies (received from the owners of the Wellwood) toward restoration of the

damaged site. Detailed investigations into the damage caused by the grounding began in 1984;

efforts to formulate the structural restoration alternatives for the Wellwood grounding site

began in 1999. The work proposed in this Environmental Assessment represents the

preferred alternative identified by NOAA. The NMSA stipulates that recovered amounts,

in excess of that required to be expended for response costs and damage assessments, must

be used, in order of priority: 1) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the sanctuary

resources; 2) management of the sanctuary where the subject resources are located, and; 3)

to manage and improve any other national marine sanctuary. Relevant sections of the NMSA

are provided in Appendix A.

5.3 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (Public Law 101-605)

The Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act requires that NOAA coordinate with

the appropriate federal, state, and local governmental agencies and entities to support

implementation of the management plan for the FKNMS. The proposed action analyzed in

this document will occur within the boundaries of the FKNMS, and therefore NOAA will

ensure that all activities comply with the sanctuary management plan. All appropriate
Section 5: Regulatory Review

Page 5-2 April 2002

permits for work within the FKNMS will be obtained from the Sanctuary Office prior to

project initiation.

5.4 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)

The Wellwood grounding site is in Federal waters, outside the 3 mile boundary of the State’s

permitting jurisdiction. A notification was submitted to the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection including a copy of the draft EA. Written confirmation that the

project was exempt from the need for an environmental resource permit was received. No

authorization from the Submerged Lands Program was required. The project was also

exempted from a US Army Corps of Engineers permit.

5.5 Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.)

The Wellwood restoration site is outside State waters and is unlikely to affect any coastal

resources within Florida’s coastal zone. However, under the Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA), all Federal activities must be consistent with the enforceable policies of State

management programs. A consistency determination was submitted to the State

Clearinghouse was submitted and NOAA received a concurrence for this restoration.

5.6 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Wetland Resources

Management

Under State law, Florida has jurisdiction over dredge and fill operations conducted in or

connected to waters of the State. Prior to issuing the Sanctuary permit NOAA will obtain

confirmation by the Bureau of Wetland Resource Management that a Water Quality

Certification for Works in the Waters of Florida is not required since restoration work will

take place outside state waters.

5.7 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Submerged Lands and

Environmental Resources

The Florida Bureau of Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources determined that the

work is located outside the State’s sovereign submerged ownership and does not require a

lease or an easement from the Division of Environmental Resource Permitting (Submerged

Lands).
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 5-3

5.8 Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources

The Division of Historical Resources’ State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was

contacted pursuant to National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. CONCA cultural resource

survey and report was conducted in August of 2001. Five areas containing shipwreck debris

were located outside of the restoration area and recommended to be avoided. Pursuant of the

recommendation, NOAA would require the contractor to avoid these areas during

construction. The SHPO has concurred with the report’s recommendations and findings.

5.9 United States Coast Guard

NOAA will notify the Coast Guard concerning the nature and timing of restoration activities

so that the Coast Guard can issue a notice to mariners.

5.10 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543)

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries made a determination that the proposed project

is not likely to adversely effect endangered or threatened species. This determination was

transmitted with the draft EA to both the US Fish and the NOAA Southeast Regional Office,

Protected Resources Division. A letter of concurrence was received from FWS, and a verbal

acknowledgement from NOAA. Section 7 is provided in Appendix B.
___________________________Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

_____________________________________________________________________________

April 2002 Page 6-1

SECTION 6. LIST OF PREPARERS

Columbine Culberg

M.S., Natural Resource Policy and Behavior, School of Natural Resources and Environment,

University of Michigan

B.A., Ecological Anthropology, Mills College

Years of Experience: 3

Joe Schittone

J.D., Law, Louisiana State University

M.A. Marine Science and Policy, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,

University of Miami

B.S., Zoology, Louisiana State University

Years of Experience: 2

Harriet Sopher

M.A., City planning, Harvard University Graduate School of Design

B.A., American Studies, University of North Carolina

Years of Experience: 27

Alice Stratton

M.S., Marine, Estuarine, Environmental Science, University of Maryland

B.A., Environmental Science, Wesleyan University

Years of Experience: 12

Lisa Symons

M.S., Environmental Advocacy, School Natural Resources and Environment, University of

Michigan

B.A., Biology and History, Alma College

Years of Experience: 12
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 7-1

SECTION 7. REFERENCES

Bowden-Kerby, A. 1997. Coral Transplantation in Sheltered Habitats Using Unattached Fragments

and Cultured Colonies. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama.

Vol. 2: 2063-2068.

Brown, B. 1996. Coral Bleaching: Cause and Consequences. Proceedings of the 8th International

Coral Reef Symposium, Panama. June 24-29.

Chiappone, M. 1996a. Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and

Environs. Vol. 2. Oceanography and Shallow-water Processes of the Florida Keys and

Florida Bay. The Nature Conservancy, Florida and Caribbean Marine Conservation Science

Center-University of Miami.

Chiappone, M. 1996b. Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and

Environs. Vol. 4. Marine Benthic Communities of the Florida Keys. The Nature

Conservancy, Florida and Caribbean Marine Conservation Science Center-University of

Miami.

Chiappone, M.A., and R. Sluka. 1996. Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary and Environs. Vol. 6. Fishes and Fisheries. The Nature Conservancy, Florida

and Caribbean Marine Conservation Science Center-University of Miami.

Coastal Planning and Engineering. 2000. Looe Key Reef Restoration Project: Post-Construction

Engineering Report. Prepared for NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Division.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1990. Synthesis of Available Biological, Geological, Chemical,

Socioeconomic, and Cultural Resource Information for the South Florida Area. MMS 90-

0019. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service.

Dennis, G.D. and T.J. Bright. 1990. Reef Fish Recovery Following the Grounding of the Freighter

M/V Wellwood on Molasses Reef, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary: Summary of Five

Years of Monitoring. Final Report to NOAA, Contract NA88AA-H-CZ037.

English, D.B., W. Kriesel, V.R. Leeworthy, and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Economic Contribution of

Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. Washington, DC. 
Section 7: References

Page 7-2 April 2002

Enos, P. 1997. Holocene Sediment Accumulations of the South Florida Shelf Margin. In

Quaternary Sedimentation in South Florida, Part 1, ed. P. Enos and R.D. Perkins, pp. 1-130.

 Geological Society of America Memoir Number 147. Geological Society of America,

Boulder, Colorado.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1997. Bahia Honda State Park. 

<www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/south/bahia.html>. Accessed November 10, 1997.

Gittings, S.R.. 1988. The Recovery Process in a Mechanically Damaged Coral Reef Community.

 Texas A & M University, Doctoral Dissertation.

Gittings, S.R and T.J Bright. 1990. Coral Recovery Following Grounding of the Freighter M/V

Wellwood, Molasses Reef, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary. Report to NOAA,

Contract NA88AA-H-CZ037.

Halas, J., J. Halas, and D. Kincaid. 1987. Diving and Snorkeling Guide to the Florida Keys. Pisces

Book Co. Inc., Glen Cove, New York.

Hanisak, M. D., S.M. Blair, G.M. Burzycki, M.A. Samuel, J.K. Reed, and W.E. Wood. 1989. 

Recolonization of Algal Communities Following the Grounding of the Freighter Wellwood on

Molasses Reef, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary. Draft Final Report to NOAA. 

Contract NA85AA-H-CZ044

Harrigan, W.J. 1984. Grounding Report of the M/V Wellwood. Unpublished. October 10.

Hayes, C. 1997. Upper Keys Region. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Hayes Cultural

Resource Report. Unpublished.

Hudson, J.H. and R. Diaz, 1988. Damage survey and restoration of M/V Wellwood grounding site,

Molasses Reef, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Proceedings of the 6th

International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia. Vol. 2.

Hudson, J.H. and B. Goodwin, 1997. Restoration and Growth Rate of Hurricane Damaged Pillar

Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus) in the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Proc.

6th Int. Coral Reef Symposium, Australia. Vol. 2: 231-236.

Jaap, W.C. 1984. The Ecology of the South Florida Coral Reefs: A Community Profile. FWS/OBS82/08 and MMS 84-0038. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and Mineral Management Service.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 7-3

Jones, R.D. and J.N. Boyer. 1999. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality

Monitoring Project: 1999 Annual Report. Prepared for the U.S.E.P.A. Contract #X994621-

94-0, Technical Report #T121 of the Southeast Environmental Research Center at Florida

International University.

Lee, T.N., M.E. Clarke, E. Williams, A.F. Szmant, and T. Berger. 1994. Evolution of the Tortugas

Gyre and its influences on recruitment in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science

54(3):621-646.

Lee, T.N., C. Rooth, E. Williams, M. McGowan, A.F. Szmant, and M.E. Clarke. 1992. Influence

of Florida Current, gyres and wind driven circulation on transport of larvae and recruitment

in the Florida coral keys. Continental Shelf Research 12(7/8): 971-1002.

Littler, M.M., D.S. Littler, J.N. Norris, and K.E. Bucher. 1984. Recolonization of Algal

Communities Following the Grounding of the Freighter Wellwood on Molasses Reef, Key

Largo National Marine Sanctuary. Final Report to NOAA, Contract NA84AA-G-04244.

Lott, C. 1996. Site Characterization for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Environs.

 Vol. 7. Nekton, Plankton, and Oceanic Influences. The Nature Conservancy, Florida and

Caribbean Marine Conservation Science Center-University of Miami.

Meylach, M. 1971. Diving to a Flash of Gold. Florida Classics Library, Port Salerno, FL.

Miller, S.L., G.B. McFall and A.W. Hulbert. 1993. Guidelines and Recommendations for Coral Reef

Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The National Undersea Research

Center at the Univ. of North Carolina. NOAA Award No. 40AANC300210.

Morse, A.N.C. 1999. Opportunities for Environmental Application of Marine Biotechnology.

Proceedings of the October 5-6, 1999, Workshop. Board on Biology, Ocean Studies Board,

National Research Council. pp. 74-84.

Morse, A.N.C and D.E. Morse. 1996. Flypapers for coral and other planktonic larvae. BioScience

46(4): 254-261.

Morse, D.E., A.N.C. Morse, P.T. Raimondi and N. Hooker. 1994. Morphogen-based chemical

flypaper for Agaricia humilis coral larvae. Biological Bulletin 186: 172-181.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 1999. National Climatic Data Center Homepage. 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/>. Accessed September 28, 1999. 
Section 7: References

Page 7-4 April 2002

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). No date a. Sei Whales. National Marine Fisheries

Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland.

<http://www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/cetacean/sei.html >. Accessed September 9, 1999.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). No date b. Sperm Whales. National Marine Fisheries

Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

<<http://www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/cetacean/sperm.html>. Accessed September 9, 1999.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1995a. Coral Reef Restoration of the

M/V Alec Owen Maitland and the M/V Elpis Grounding Sites. U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1995b. Environmental Assessment

for the Structural Restoration of the M/V Alec Owen Maitland Grounding Site, Key Largo

National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge,

MA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1995c. Environmental Assessment

for the Structural Restoration of the M/V Elpis Grounding Site, Key Largo National Marine

Sanctuary, Florida. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996a. Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary, Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Volume I. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996b. Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary, Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Volume II. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996c. Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary, Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Volume III. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996d. Restoration Plan for the

Grounding Site of the University of Miami’s R/V Columbus Iselin in the Looe Key National

Marine Sanctuary. Prepared by Charles M. Wahle, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 7-5

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1996e. Structural Restoration of the

M/V Alec Owen Maitland and M/V Elpis Vessel Grounding Sites; Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary. Prepared by Kevin R. Bodge, Olsen Associates, Inc. January 31. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1997b. A Socioeconomic Analysis of

the Recreation Activities of Monroe County Residents in the Florida Keys/Key West. Prepared

by Vernon R. Leeworthy and Peter C. Wiley, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,

Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. August.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999a. Environmental Assessment,

R/V Columbus Iselin Grounding Site Restoration. Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary,

Monroe County, Florida. Prepared by TetraTech, Fairfax, VA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999b. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Homepage. <http://www.nos.noaa.gov>. Accessed September

9, 1999.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999c. Tidal Bench Marks, Florida.

 <http://www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/ben_fl.html>. Accessed September 9, 1999. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2000. Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary Homepage. <http://www.nos.noaa.gov/nmsp/fknms/>. Accessed January 26,

2000.

National Weather Service (NWS). 1994. Hurricanes...Unleashing Nature’s Fury. U.S. Department

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service,

Silver Spring, Maryland. <www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hurrbro.htm>. March 1994. Accessed

March 15, 2000.

NURC 1993. See Miller, McFall and Hulbert, supra.

NURC (National Undersea Research Center). 1997. Final Report, NOAA Contract Number

NA37OM0489.

Pitts, P.A. 1994. An investigation of near-bottom flow patterns along and across Hawk Creek,

Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3): 6610-620. 

Schomer, N.S., and R.D. Drew. 1982. An Ecological Characterization of the Lower Everglades,

Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. FWS/OBS-82/58.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office

of Biological Services, Washington, DC.
Section 7: References

Page 7-6 April 2002

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, D.M. Robbin, and B. Lidz. 1981. Spurs and Grooves Revisited:

Construction Versus Erosion, Looe Key Reef, Florida. In Proceedings of the Fourth

International Coral Reef Symposium, Manila, Philippines. Vol. 1. Marine Sciences Center,

University of Philippines.

Smith, N.P. 1991. Physical Oceanography. In SEAKEYS PHASE 1: Sustained Ecological Research

Related to Management of the Florida Keys Seascape, pp. 16-22. Florida Institute of

Oceanography, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Smith, N.P. 1994. Long-term Gulf-to-Atlantic transport through tidal channels in the Florida Keys.

 Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3): 602-609.

Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. 2001. Cultural Resource Assessment of MV Wellwood

Grounding Site Restoration Anchoring Area. Report to NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary

Program. 

United Nations Environment Programme and International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(UNEP/IUCN). 1988. Coral reefs of the world. 3 vols. United Nations Environment

Programme and International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Nairobi, Switzerland,

and Cambridge, UK.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic

Analysis (U.S. DOC). 1998. REIS - Regional Economic Information System 1969-96 (CDROM). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau

of Economic Analysis, Washington, DC.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999a. Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS). <http://www.epa.gov/airs>. Accessed September 28, 1999.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999b. EnviroFacts Database.

<http://www.epa.gov/surf2/HUCS/hucinfo/03090203>. Accessed September 28, 1999.

Waxman, J.B. and P. Christensen. 1997. Letter to G.P. Schmall, Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary. October 21, 1997.

Wheaton, J.L. and W.C. Jaap. 1988. Corals and Other Prominent Benthic Cnidaria of Looe Key

National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Publication No. 43. Florida Department of Natural

Resources, Bureau of Marine Research.
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 8-1

SECTION 8. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 (revised May 20, 1999) provides eleven criteria

for determining the significance of the impacts of a proposed action. These criteria are

discussed below with respect to the proposed action (alternative 1):

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse -- a significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

The beneficial effects of the proposed action are expected to be significant with no adverse

effects. The restoration would limit future threat to damaged pre-existing habitat while

providing habitat to both locally threatened coral reef communities.

2. What is the degree to which public health or safety is affected by the proposed action?

Public health and safety will not be affected by the proposed action. The only potential

health risk is if a catastrophic petroleum, oil, or lubricant leak occurred. The likelihood of this

type of spill is very small, and the short duration of the construction phase would help to

minimize the potential for a catastrophic release. In the case of this event occurring, spill

prevention, response and clean-up plans have been developed. However, even if this occurs,

the impact will be on the coral reef communities and only come into contact with members

of the public who venture out to molasses reef.

3. Are there unique characteristics of the geographic area in which the proposed action is to

take place?

The coral reef ecosystem of the Florida Keys is unique as compared to other coral reefs in

the world. However, the site of the proposed action is particularly unique to the Florida

Keys because it is an ecological reserve. The reserve designation is because Molasses Reef

is the most heavily visited reef in the Florida Keys. 

4. What is the degree to which effects on the human environment are likely to be highly

controversial?

The effects to the human environment are expected to be positive (refer to section 4.10 for

a discussion of the socioeconomic impacts). Therefore, the effects are not at all likely to be

controversial amongst the residents of the Florida Keys. In fact, restoring the reef will

support more coral habitat for divers to enjoy and therefore beneficially impact the human

environment.
Section 1: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Page 8-2 April 2002

5. What is the degree to which effects are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown

risks?

The restoration draws on the experience of previous NOAA restoration activities (refer to

section 2.1 for details). Restorations such as that of the Columbus Iselin included placement

of modules in areas of damaged reef. The monitoring projects in restoration areas have

shown coral recruitment. The only unknown factor, which is not a risk, is the population

diversity and density in coral re-colonization of the restored area. 

6. What is the degree to which the action establishes a precedent for future actions with

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration?

The FKNMS has already issued numerous authorizations for coral reef restorations in the

past. Therefore, this action does not set a precedent. Furthermore, the more restorations

that occur in the sanctuary will enable FKNMS to make more informed decisions about

similar projects in the future.

7. Does the proposed action have individually insignificant but cumulatively significant

impacts?

The proposed action is expected to have individually insignificant impacts. The cumulative

impacts of restored reefs along the Florida Keys reef tract is expected to be a positive benefit

to the coral reef ecosystem. These reefs were injured by ship groundings and are now being

restored to approximate their original, pre-injury condition. This will provide marine life

habitat and encourage coral recruitment.

8. What is the degree to which the action adversely affects entities listed in or eligible for

listing in the National Register or Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction of

significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources?

The proposed action will not adversely affect any entity listed in or eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places. The State of Florida Historic Preservation Officer has

concurred with this finding in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. A

comprehensive cultural resource survey of the project site was performed. The only artifacts

noted in the area were outside the actual work site for this project. Refer to section 4.7.10

for a discussion.

9. What is the degree to which endangered or threatened species, or their critical habitat as

defined under the Endangered Species Act or 1973, are adversely affected?
Environmental Assessment: Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration

April 2002 Page 8-3

The proposed action will not have a significant impact on any species listed as endangered

or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The National Marine Sanctuary Program

has coordinated with both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, who have both concurred.

10. Is a violation of Federal, state, or local law for environmental protection threatened?

The proposed action does not threaten any violation of Federal, state, or local environmental

law. While this activity would otherwise be prohibited by FKNMS regulations (15 CFR

922), an FKNMS permit has been issued for the project. All necessary approvals have been

obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida.

11. Will the proposed action result in the introduction or spread of a nonindigenous species?

The proposed action should not affect the status of any invasive species. All materials being

used are natural limestone or domestic products. All vessels being used to conduct the

project work are domestic and will not be taking on ballast in a foreign port prior to entering

the ecosystem.
Section 1: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Page 8-4 April 2002

8.1 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT STATEMENT

In view of the analysis presented in this document, the proposed restoration of a coral reef

at Molasses Reef off Key Largo, Florida, will not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment, with specific reference to the criteria contained in Section 6.1 or NAO

216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for implementing the National Environmental

Policy Act. Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the

proposed action is not necessary.

_________________________________________ __________________

Margaret A. Davidson Date

Acting Assistant Administrator

For Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management