[Coral-List] Discovery Land Project

Robert Bourke rbourke at oceanit.com
Wed Mar 15 22:44:36 EST 2006


 Mike
	I respectively disagree with this approach.   It is a recipe for
merely cataloging and documenting the disaster as it occurs.  There
needs to be a real up-front effort to make this, or any other, coastal
development has no long term negative impacts on the living marine
coastal resources.  Monitoring is only one piece of the puzzle.  This is
not to say that any coastal development should be allowed or is even a
good idea, rather that any development must face up to their long term
impact to the environment upon which their good fortune ultimately
relies.

Concepts of Low Impact Development and active management using
primarily groundwater and runoff monitoring feedback programs are
effective in many locations.  For example, in Hawaii any new golf course
must install lysimeters to check percolation through the vadoz zone and
monitor ground water.  This creates a feed-back loop to managers who
then may adjust watering or fertilization rates.  It appears to be
working.

Other impacts from energy consumption and shoreline erosion to
sewerage disposal and water use likewise need to be examined from a more
"holistic" viewpoint.  You may be surprised at the environmental savings
that can be banked by looking at the overall efficiency of the site
development plan.  Somewhat counter-intuitive to the prevalent chatter
on this web site, the developer does not intend to ruin the environment
upon which is investment is built - - he just has other more pressing
prioritie$ during the frenzy of development.

The line of reasoning with the greatest chance of success will
appeal to the long term financial success of the development.  It is
possible to convince the most anti-environmental establishments to take
a "green" approach if the argument is presented appropriately.
Presently the largest environmental engineering company in the world is
the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the largest user of Green
development techniques is the US Military.  While this is not intended
to condone many other activities of these organizations, it should go to
show that there are other long term benefits of green development that
may appeal to a long-term land owner.

Good Luck

Bob Bourke
Environmental Scientist (ex-marine biologist)
Oceanit


-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Michael
Risk
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:45 AM
To: Todd Barber; coral-list at aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Discovery Land Project

Hello Todd.

My involvement with the Guana Cay situation has been restricted to the
writing of a short initial report, which was commissioned by the present
inhabitants. I have no involvement at present. Nonetheless, I want my
position on your actions to be crystal-clear to the -list:

I am opposed to the use of Reef Balls or indeed any similar artificial
reef structures in this case. There is no need for them when the reef is
healthy. In fact, if you want to be of real use, try to ensure that Reef
Balls are never needed on Guana.

What would help is what the "eco-friendly" developer has already
rejected. In this case, AND ALL SUCH CASES, there must be the following
ingredients:

1. necessary and sufficient baseline data on fish, invertebrates, and
nutrients. These data must be taken by qualified people, and at a
research-grade level with proper QA/QC protocols.

2. there must be a long-term monitoring program established, carried out
by an arms'-length agency (ie, NOT hired by and reporting to the
developer).

3. all data must be distributed freely and archived in several
locations.

None of the above conditions have been met. 

Mike
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Todd Barber
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:10 AM
To: Michael Risk; coral-list at aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Discovery Land Project

Hi Michael,

First, it should be known that I have never suggested Reef Balls for
Guana Cay.  I have simply offered to interviene between those interested
in preserving coral reefs and the developer to get a better outcome for
the reef.  And in fact, the Reef Ball Foundation would ALWAYS prefer to
save a natural reef rather than having to resort to building an
artificial one.

But help me out here, it seems we have a Developer that is willing to
consider options to make the development have less impact on the reef
and we seem to have several scientists that can suggest "low impact"
technologies that might be appropriate.  (And it actually appears from
my investigation that the Developer is trying to incorporate as many low
impact features as they can).  We have you saying we need an independent
(non-developer
sponsored) baseline and monitoring program which I agree with.  Seems to
me like everyone is in agreement on what to do to move forward.  I must
be missing something.

You mentioned the developer "rejected" baseline & monitoring. I am not
sure I understand who a developer could reject this or how a developer
should even be involved in baseline data and on-going monitoring....that
should be something the governmental agencies do or other independent
scientific or NGO organizations do...as you stated it needs to be at
arms length and I don't think that the developer can reject anyone doing
science in the water near their development.  It is a public policy
issue if this information needs to be gathered.  Certainly it is not
done for every development.... 
for example, did you do a baseline and on-going monitoring on the impact
to, for example, bird nesting impacts when you built your home?
Sometimes government would say it was important to do so (in the event
your house was being developed on a historical bird nesting location)
and sometimes they would say it was not necessary.  In the case of Guana
Cay, I would say, "yes" we need to baseline and monitor the coral reefs
around Guana Cay because the development is significant and the coral
reef is important.  So, the government should bear that expense.  It
should be able to more than pay for the studies with the increased tax
revenues generated by the development.

My point in all of this is that as activists, if we are going to cry out
against development, we need to have alternatives, suggestions, and
action plans to help guide the development to minimize the negative
impacts.  Even if faced with the complete halt of development we don't
necessary achieve victory and save the reef because the developer will
just move to another island with less resistance.  That's why we need to
give them assistance, not necessarily resistance.

I'll give you an example from my own life.  I have always known since I
was young that the cars I drove contributes to coral reef's decline.
Did I drive a solar car? No, it was not practical.  But two years ago
they came out with Hybrid cars.  So, now both of my cars are hybrids.
Science provided me with a reasonable alternative...cost me a bit more
but I know it is better for the reefs.  I think developers will do the
same as science offers then alternatives.

Is there a way to use this opportunity of an open dialog with the
developer to accomplish something positive?


Thanks,

Todd Barber
Chairman Reef Ball Foundation, Inc.
3305 Edwards Court
Greenville, NC 27858
reefball at reefball.com

http://www.artificialreefs.org
http://www.reefball.org
http://www.reefball.com

Direct: 252-353-9094
mobile: 941-720-7549
Fax 425-963-4119

Personal Space: http://www.myspace/reefball
Group Space http://groups.myspace.com/reefballfoundation
Skype & MSN For Voice or Video Conferences:
Available upon request

Atlanta/Athens Office
890 Hill Street
Athens, GA 30606 USA
770-752-0202
(Our headquarters...not where I work see above)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Risk" <riskmj at univmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
To: "Todd Barber" <reefball at reefball.com>; <coral-list at aoml.noaa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Discovery Land Project


> Hello Todd.
>
> My involvement with the Guana Cay situation has been restricted to the
> writing of a short initial report, which was commissioned by the
> present inhabitants. I have no involvement at present. Nonetheless, I
> want my position on your actions to be crystal-clear to the -list:
>
> I am opposed to the use of Reef Balls or indeed any similar artificial
> reef structures in this case. There is no need for them when the reef
> is healthy. In fact, if you want to be of real use, try to ensure that
> Reef Balls are never needed on Guana.
>
> What would help is what the "eco-friendly" developer has already
> rejected. In this case, AND ALL SUCH CASES, there must be the
following
> ingredients:
>
> 1. necessary and sufficient baseline data on fish, invertebrates, and
> nutrients. These data must be taken by qualified people, and at a
> research-grade level with proper QA/QC protocols.
>
> 2. there must be a long-term monitoring program established, carried
> out by an arms'-length agency (ie, NOT hired by and reporting to the
> developer).
>
> 3. all data must be distributed freely and archived in several
> locations.
>
> None of the above conditions have been met.
>
> Mike 

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list



More information about the Coral-List mailing list