The Obama White House and new federal policies to protect independent science ... by gimleteye

One of the lingering disasters of the Bush presidency and Republican majority in Congress is repression and outright hostility by senior bureaucrats in federal agencies to science that contradicts predetermined outcomes. The promise of the Obama White House to free science from ideology came closer to reality earlier this week. The issue at hand: eliminating restrictions on stem cell development. But there are many, many more issues that live or die on the vine according to political pressure on scientists to throttle and suppress independent science.

In the next few months, the Obama administration will release a memorandum clarifying federal support for science decoupled from ideology. "The memorandum will ensure that "people who are appointed to federal positions in science have strong credentials and that the vetting process for evaluating scientific information doesn't lead to any undermining of the scientific opinion." It is a tall order, given the way in which the culture of scientific inquiry has been overgrown by the weeds of influence peddling and careerism.

New policies might help remove the cloud that obscured the way that risk avoidance by Wall Street, in the creation and proliferation of fraudulent financial instruments like derivatives based on housing, matched up exactly to the shape of federal agencies to that facilitated growth by allowing wetlands destruction, despite science and protective regulations, in states like Florida.

From the US Army Corps of Engineers to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US EPA, science takes a back seat to the influence of special interests. The facts are documented in an excellent new book by Craig Pittman and Matthew Waite, St. Pete Times journalists, "Paving Paradise: Florida's vanishing wetlands and the failure of no-net loss". "We found that from 1999 to 2003 the Corps approved about 12,000 permits in Florida, allowing wetlands to be destroyed. Denials totaled exactly one."

If you want a glimpse of the forces at work, you might consider visiting a public meeting on Friday on Key Biscayne at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center near the UM Rosensteil School campus, of The Biscayne Bay Regional Restoration Coordination Team. There will be presentations by two federal entities whose effectiveness has been deeply influenced by the politics of unsustainable growth: the USGS and Everglades National Park. For instance, during the formulation of the multi-billion dollar plan to restore the Everglades, the USGS was not even consulted or asked to provide an official position on the use of 333 acquifer storage and recovery wells that are at the heart of the 2000 plan. Of any federal agency, the USGS was the only one competent to evaluate the risk to Florida's underground aquifers from industrial exploitation.

In its formulation of which agencies should be responsible for managing the massive project, Everglades National Park was not even given a co-equal role next to the two agencies charged with both constructing and auditing progress: the US Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District.

Today, according to an August 2007 report by the EPA-- based on a 2005 analysis-- 49 percent the remnant Everglades contains more phosphorous than legally permissable according to the 10 parts per billion criteria. "During the November 2005 sampling event approximately 27% of the Everglades marsh had a surface water phosphorus concentration greater than 10 parts per billion. However, during 2005 soil phosphorus exceeded 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), Florida’s definition of "impacted", in 24% of the Everglades, and it exceeded 400 mg/kg, CERP’s restoration goal, in 49% of the Everglades."

And Biscayne Bay, Miami's crown jewel, is suffering too. Both funding and planning for re-hydrating Biscayne Bay have slipped through the cracks; pushed there by development interests and rock miners and Florida Power and Light which is now seeking permits to change local zoning codes in order to mine enough lime rock fill to raise its pads for two new nuclear reactors more than twenty feet above sea level.

The Obama White House statement includes the following announcement:

Within 120 days, the Director of OSTP must develop a strategy for ensuring that:

- The selection of scientists and technology professionals for science and technology positions in the executive branch is based on those individuals’ scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, and experience;

- Agencies make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied upon in policy decisions;

- Agencies use scientific and technological information that has been subject to well-established scientific processes such as peer review; and

- Agencies have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency, including whistleblower protection.

In conclusion, Americans should welcome, even embrace, President Obama for promoting strong and independent science. But understand, just like our economic miseries have a long way to go, the force behind distorted policies and ideologies that suppress science and scientists have a tremendous momentum. In South Florida, this momentum has been a tsunami like the one that hit Southeast Asia a few years ago. In important respects, those of us who worried, fretted, and advocated sound science to tame the devastating impacts of unsustainable growth are like dazed survivors sifting through the wreckage.



Judge: EPA turned 'blind eye' to Everglades

By BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press Writer
The Palm Beach Post
July 29, 2008

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — The U.S Environmental Protection Agency has turned a "blind eye" to Florida's Everglades cleanup efforts, while the state is violating its own commitment to restore the vast ecosystem, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

In a stinging ruling from Miami, U.S. District Judge Alan Gold put to rest a 2004 lawsuit filed against the EPA, ordering the agency to review water pollution standards and timelines set by Florida for the Everglades.

Gold repeatedly accused EPA of acting "arbitrarily and capriciously" in its failure to adhere to the mandates of the Clean Water Act.

"Plaintiffs are correct," Gold wrote, "that EPA has once again avoided its duty to protect the Everglades."


US EPA: August 2007:

"During the November 2005 sampling event approximately 27% of the Everglades marsh had a surface water phosphorus concentration greater than 10 parts per billion. However, during 2005 soil phosphorus exceeded 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), Florida’s definition of "impacted", in 24% of the Everglades, and it exceeded 400 mg/kg, CERP’s restoration goal, in 49% of the Everglades."

-----Original Message-----
From: JL3353@aol.com [mailto:JL3353@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:55 PM
To: Jeb@jeb.org; Ernie.Barnett@dep.state.fl.us; JamInfo@aol.com; David.Struhs@dep.state.fl.us; HDean@SFWMD.gov
Cc: James.G.May@USACE.army.mil; Jackie.McGorty@dep.state.fl.us; Deena.Wells@dep.state.fl.us; RSmith@SFWMD.gov; Frank.Nearhoof@dep.state.fl.us; Jerry.Brooks@dep.state.fl.us; Jennifer.Fitzwater@dep.state.fl.us; Duncan2U@aol.com; terry.l.rice@worldnet.att.net; ksb@lehtinenlaw.com

Subject: Response to Ernie Barnett: The "90% Clean" Everglades Shell Game

In a message dated 6/4/03 1:22:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ernie.Barnett@dep.state.fl.us writes:

John and Joette,

The 90% figure is based on the department's calculation of the impacted area, which is based on soil sample and biological impact maps. Attached is a draft report that documents the methods used to determine impacted areas. Those calculations indicate about 10% of the Everglades Protectection Area has unimpacted soil and unaltered flora and fauna. It is well documented that natural populations of flora and fauna require clean water to maintain the oligotrophic communities of the Everglades. Therefore, it is a fair deduction that areas that have healthy populations of native and flora and low soil phosphorus also have clean water in the overlying water column. The 90% figure is based on spatial extent of habitat and waters in the Everglades Protection Area not a summary of individual water samples. A summary of individual stations that are at or below 10 ppb does provide a acccurate summary of the percentage of the Everglades Protection Area that is achieving water quality standards because there is not a uniform distribution of stations in the unimpacted and impacted areas. - Ernie Barnett

RESPONSE:

The "90% Clean" Everglades Shell Game

Dear Ernie,

Thank you for responding to my e-mail to Deena Wells of DEP requesting documentation to support the 90% figure in quotes made by Secretary Struhs ("Water in the Everglades is 90% clean") and Governor Bush ("Today, 90% of the Everglades has phosphorus levels of no more than 10ppb.") Neither your note, nor the DEP draft document you attached on "Impacted Area Identification," gives me any comfort about the state's "90% clean" claim. Didn't the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) recently reject this same document for inclusion in its phosphorous rule? It seems to me, a non-scientist, that even if DEP could prove that it is scientifically defensible to make such a tenuous conclusion about the present state of water quality in the Everglades based on soil phosphorous and dated vegetation maps, that such statistical averaging would mask the spreading harm in vital areas of the Everglades by statistically diluting it. In fact, the use of such a figure obfuscates the real issue, which is as long as water continues to enter the Everglades above 10 ppb, the Everglades will continue to disappear until the pollution is stopped or the Everglades are destroyed.

I don't understand how you can base your 90% clean claim on a 7 year old 1995/96 REMAP vegetation study that was not generated for the purpose which you are using it. The maps of cattail presence/absence from the mid 90s are not sufficient to judge impacted areas from unimpacted areas in 2003. Indeed, cattail are the least sensitive plant to TP. As Dr. Ron Jones points out, the cattail are the markers on the grave. The damage to the Everglades occurs much earlier. Periphyton is a much better indicator of that damage. Also, anybody who visits the areas on your maps today, knows that in certain areas they are incorrect as to the current status of cattail. Why doesn't DEP use more recent data, or fund new studies, to assess the current status of water quality and vegetative impacts in the Everglades? I have asked the same question of SFWMD, which is currently conducting cattail mapping of the Everglades using old 1994/95 aerial photos. With all the funds being spent on new buildings, one would think that the SFWMD or DEP could afford more recent aerial photos of the Everglades vegetation changes. Perhaps the reason the state doesn't is because, as a former state scientist remarked last year on Everglades Commons, "I often wondered if they really wanted to document the bitter truth."

In my June 3rd e-mail to Deena, I asked how the 2003 SFWMD/DEP Everglades Consolidated Reports findings that 62% of the water quality samples collected in the Everglades Protection Area (EPA) were above 10ppb correlates with the Governor's claim that today 90% of the Everglades has phosphorous levels of no more than 10 ppb. I referred her to Chapter 2A of the Report's Executive Summary which says, "Looking at the Everglades Protection Area as a whole, 38% of the phosphorous concentrations were at or below 10ppb"...which means 62% of the samples were above 10ppb. In your response, you say that's because there is no uniform distribution of stations in the impacted and unimpacted areas. While, I did not correlate the 62% water quality samples over 10ppb with 62% of the EPA not meeting 10 ppb, it appears to me that using actual 2003 reported water quality data would be more indicative of water quality in the Everglades than your averaging of data from soil phosphorous and vegetation from 7 year old maps. If, as you claim, the state water quality monitoring network does not have a uniform distribution of stations to enable it to assess water quality conditions, why doesn't the state set up one that does?

Quite simply, it seems to me that using the draft impacted area study and a 1995/96 vegetation map to try to assure the public alarmed by the new EFA that you have somehow made progress because "Water in the Everglades is 90% clean" is overly simplistic and even misleading. First, it is my understanding that soil phosphorous levels can not be used as a surrogate for delineating impacted from non-impacted areas, because soil phosphorous changes dramatically in the Everglades based on the soil type and this can cause as much as 100% error in calculating the P. value. If so, wouldn't you be better off using a ouija board to arrive at your 90% figure? Second, even if DEP could justify using its method to accurately assess water quality in the Everglades, this averaging method underestimates the damage spreading in biologically important areas of the Everglades through statistical dilution. Is it DEP's position that statistical dilution is the ultimate solution to pollution?

I suggest you review the current science which shows that conditions in the northern Everglades, closest to the pollution source, are getting worse. An article in the Journal of Environmental Quality, Spatio-temporal Patterns of Soil Phosphorous Enrichment in Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A, Debusk et al.(2001), in which SFWMD and University of Florida Scientists sampled peat in 1992 and 1998 reports that 51,000 acres (48%) had soil TP of 500 mg/kg in 1992, and this increased to 78,000 acres (73%) in 1998, an average increase of 3,300 acres a year. The article says, "Study results indicate that the soil P enrichment "front" has advanced further into the relatively unimpacted areas during the past several years." An even more recent article in the Journal of Environmental Quality (2003), 32:344-362, Decadal Change in Vegetation and Soil Phosphorous Pattern across the Everglades Landscape, Childers et al.in which DOI and FIU scientists sampled plants and soil in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and WCA 2A in 1989 and again in 1999, reported that for Loxahatchee and WCA 2A "water quality impacts worsened during this time" and cattail had expanded. How does the this evidence of spreading damage in WCA 2A and Loxahatchee correlate with your 90% figure?

When the federal government filed its lawsuit against the state in 1988, it demanded that pollution being discharged into the Everglades from the north be stopped, because, if not, the nutrient front would continue to expand. The state cannot continue to allow polluted water to enter the Everglades, and at the same time claim it is getting better. Even if your tenuously arrived at 90% claim was accurate, ( what % was polluted when the 1988 lawsuit was filed?) that means that 10% of the Everglades has been irreversibly damaged by pollution. The Everglades lawsuit was not brought over 90% clean or 10% dirty, but to stop phosphorous pollution being discharged to the Everglades. Unfortunately, due to your new EFA, stopping the pollution is nowhere in sight. The law no longer has a definite enforcement deadline when water discharged to the Everglades Protection Area must meet the final phosphorus criterion; and a review of the Long Term Plan implemented by it shows the state doesn't even intend to meet 10ppb in 2056...more than 50 years >from now. Thus, the continuing pollution sanctioned by the new EFA means the damage will also continue to spread until a larger and larger percentage of the Everglades is destroyed. No matter how DEP spins it, the bitter truth is that only when water being discharged into the Everglades is of a quality that will not cause an imbalance of flora and fauna there, then, and only then, will we see the slow start of an improvement in the Everglades.

Joette Lorion