Monday, November 14, 2011

Florida Keys -- shifting baselines ... by gimleteye

I received my introduction to Florida politics and the environment in Key West. In the late 1980's, one of my initial forays as an advocate was to help support the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. On Keys-wide cable I hosted a talk show on the Sanctuary with the first sanctuary manager, Billy Causey.

Causey was quoted in a press account last week related to a new study by the Marine Sanctuary: "Condition Report 2011". "Today we know more about coral reefs than ever before in history," Causey said. "We see ['Conditions Report 2011'] as a baseline. We will make it better from here."

I understand it is important to build public interest and support for public investments necessary to protect the Everglades and Florida Bay. But I also strongly oppose sugar-coating the rapid destruction of natural resources in Florida. By sugar-coating, one avoids the facts how the costs of pollution are shifted by industry and legislatures onto the backs of taxpayers.

Causey calls the new study a "baseline", but the marine sanctuary established in 1990 was also supposed to be a baseline. What happened to that baseline? Shifting goal posts is the unavoidable legacy of efforts to restore Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay and the Everglades.



 New study: Keys marine ecosystem faces struggles By KEVIN WADLOW kwadlow@keynoter.com October 26, 2011 06:00 AM EDT By KEVIN WADLOW Coral reef ecosystems face numerous pressures as outlined in 'Condition Report 2011' for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Officials say the report provides a baseline for restoration efforts, and notes some encouraging signs. A new report assessing ecosystem conditions in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary grades out around a C-minus -- maybe. "It's a very stressed ecosystem," sanctuary Superintendent Sean Morton said. "It takes a long time for recovery and there are a lot of pressures out there." The first-time "Conditions Report 2011" for the Keys, compiled by National Marine Sanctuaries Program staff consulting with scientific experts, assessed 14 questions relating to water quality, living resources and habitat. Of those, eight in the Keys sanctuary were rated as fair to poor. Three were fair and one was undetermined. One issue -- the population of "selected key species" including coral, sea urchins, grouper and conch -- was listed as poor. That means the lack of the species could harm "ecosystem integrity" or has reached the point where the prospect of a complete recovery appears "unlikely." Only the relative stability of major habitat types including mangroves and ocean bottom was listed as good to fair. Nothing was described a solid good. Six environmental issues are believed to be getting worse, with five listed as unchanging. Because of sewage treatment programs under way throughout Monroe County, the human impact on nearshore water quality was listing as "improving." "There is some sobering news and some good news," said Southeast U.S. Regional Sanctuaries Manager Billy Causey, the Keys sanctuary's first superintendent. "It clearly points out that all we are confronted with did not start on Nov. 16, 1990," when Congress designated the sanctuary, Causey said. "Many of our problems started way back, some time ago." Fixing a complex marine ecosystem degraded by a century of manmade stress -- nearshore development, climate change, vessel groundings, pollution and overfishing, among others -- doesn't come quickly, sanctuary managers said in releasing the 108-page "Conditions Report 2011" on Thursday. "This is the first attempt to describe comprehensively the status, pressures and trends of resources at Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary," according to a program description. "The report helps identify gaps in current monitoring efforts, as well as causal factors that may require monitoring and potential remediation in the years to come." Trouble for corals Coverage by stony corals (elkhorn, staghorn, boulder and more) stands at about 6.6 percent in the Keys sanctuary, down from 12.7 percent in 1996. "Populations of elkhorn and staghorn coral underwent a regionwide decline during the 1980s and 1990s, with losses of 95 percent or more in some areas, principally due to white-band disease and locally due to storm damage," says the report. "Some scientists have suggested that the loss of these species may have led to increases in algae, reduced rates of reef [growth] and erosion of the reef framework." "We have not seen the recruitment of new corals," Causey said. "The good news is that it has not continued to decline since 1996 and 1997, when we had back-to-back years of [extensive] coral bleaching." Recognition of the problems has increased among the public, which is a big step toward restoration, sanctuary staff said. "The Florida Keys community is way ahead of other areas in terms of understanding the situation and wanting to do more in terms of understanding the ecosystem and wanting to protect it," Morton said. "Everybody here is all in." The public mostly has accepted the marine-zoning plan that limits harvesting activity of most of the most major reef sites, and covers larger systems as ecological reserves, officials said. Still, some positives Increases in some fishery populations in areas like the Tortugas Ecological Reserve are a positive sign, said sanctuary chief scientist Scott Donahue, a primary author of the report. Efforts to expand coral nursery projects and ongoing work to improve sewage treatment can lead to positive changes, Donahue said. A six-year monitoring project in waters off Marathon's Little Venice area shows significant reduction in harmful bacteria since sewers were installed, he said. The scientific community has come to a general consensus that climate change exists. "Now we can talk about climate change being a big issue that we have to address for managing reefs at a local level," Causey said. "Today we know more about coral reefs than ever before in history," Causey said. "We see ['Conditions Report 2011'] as a baseline. We will make it better from here." The full report was posted online Friday at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/condition/fknms.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

With such staggering losses of corals - 95 percent - from baseline, why are we allowing the U.S. Army Corps to blast another 7 acres of never before impacted coral reef off Miami Beach to make way for the Port of Miami superfreighter deep dredge? More losses to the coral reefs are expected if Port Everglades gets its Deep Dredge project, too. Artificial reef "mitigation" doesn't cut it to make up for losses. Writing another report about it doesn't help. Complaining about it on a blog doesn't cut it either.

Anonymous said...

Causey and the FKNSm had their chance to do it right 20 years ago and they blew it when:

1) they tried to make everybody happy (an impossible task) in the name of advancing their program and their weak agenda, and

2) they turned over management of nearshore habitats to the state and their hapless, political bunch, and

3) they played along with the simple-minded approach advanced by self-serving interests that if we spent a few hundred million public $$ treating sewage that all would be ok, and all "real" problems would be solved.

Now 20 years later we see the fallacy in that approach and Causey et al want to act like none of the degradation of the last 20 years ever happended - while their programs spent scores of $$millions on themselves, their big boats, and their cool dive gear all the while building their empires.

who will clean up their mess?

geez, what a waste.

Anonymous said...

As a fisherman and a diver enjoying the wonderful diversity of the reefs that exist on Miami's doorstep, I take exception to the concept that they are inexorably in decline. Since first experiencing this wonderful habitat in 1965 I personaly have witnessed the growth of new coral colonies on artificial structures in the last 10 years. The alleged destruction of 7 acres of "untouched reef" is a bit of overstatement.
The region of the coast near Goverment Cut has been disturbed and recovered from changes made for Miami since it's inception. Good stewardship of the resources is key. I would suggest Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the freeze of last year did more damage to the reefs and fisheries than the effects of this project. The reef's will survive provided the water they receive from the south is maintained for their benefit.

Anonymous said...

There's no "overstatement" about the destruction of untouched reef. It is a fact. That information is from the U.S. Army Corps's own admission and FDEP draft permit. A fact is not an overstatement or an opinion. This is not FOX news.