[Coral-List] Coral killing continues in Florida

Fri Sep 11 17:40:45 EDT 2015

Dear Gene

I feel I have to write something in response to the points you make on the
list regarding the state of corals/reef adjacent to the Port of Miami. I
dove at this site intensively as part of a FWC-permitted recovery operation
in June 2014 to rescue corals prior to the dredge continuing. I think your
email inaccurately represents just how many corals were present in this
area, how many corals have died as a result of dredging, and what the
impacts of losing these corals might be for the reefs in Miami-Dade county
(and adjacent areas) in the future. Finally, you state that dredging plumes
are "unavoidable" and "something none of us can stop", a statement I believe
also deserves to be challenged.

I have listed the statements I disagree with below, and explained why below
each one. 

Statement 1: "I know it well and although there were some corals there it is
a stretch to consider it a coral reef. That limestone area had been
essentially devoid of reef-building corals for millennia. The few corals
that were there were only the hardiest, weediest species"
- You are correct that overall coral cover in this area was relatively low
compared to reefs further south in the Florida Keys. However, the important
point is that there were nevertheless tens of thousands of scleractinian
corals living in the affected area, some up to a meter or more in diameter
and decades old.  As you state in your email, these corals represent "the
hardiest, weediest species" (or genotypes).  They had survived numerous
combined stresses for many years and consequently represented a potential
stockpile of robust corals that would have helped ensure that we have the
adaptive genetic variation for reefs to be maintained into the future.
Unfortunately, these corals were killed because they were smothered by acute
sedimentation from the PortMiami dredging project. This important genetic
variation has now been lost from the population as a result of the dredging
activities. 

We spend a lot of time on this list (and elsewhere) talking about the value
of creating networks of MPAs, identifying resilient populations of corals
for protection, and how to best manage corals for the future. If we cannot
use our science to prevent the most direct of human impacts (like dredging
sediment smothering endangered corals in, and adjacent to, a Marine
Protected Area - the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve - right next to a coastal
tourism-based economy in a wealthy developed nation), then the situation is
clearly more dire than many of us would like to admit... 

Statement 2: "Some divers have photographed sediment accumulations on corals
near the dredge area but were not aware the sediment was on corals already
dead."
- Many photographs have been taken to document sediment accumulation in the
area (even on dead corals) because scientists are trying to document the
extent of the sediment plume, which extends far further than was planned for
by the Army Corps, or anticipated in the environmental permits. That the
sediment is now on corals that are already dead proves the point that the
sediment plume has extended to reef areas with many (sometimes old) corals
on them. There was no good system in place to monitor the amount of sediment
in the area, and the impacts of sediments were grossly underestimated in the
Army Corps' environmental plan. The failure to properly plan for sediments
was so bad that even the sites designated as restoration sites (for the few
staghorn corals that were being relocated) ended up being themselves within
the sediment plume....

[This is not merely my opinion. In a letter on 14 May 2014 from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the Army Corps of Engineers (who are
responsible for the dredge project) NMFS states: "NMFS unequivocally
reiterates that the sedimentation actually experienced at the Port of Miami
greatly exceeds the amount that we predicted in our Biological Opinion, both
in area affected and environmental consequences, and that reinitiation of
consultation was required to consider the unanticipated sedimentation". They
continue: "The partial and total mortality of coral colonies caused by the
dredging-induced sedimentation at Miami Harbor is not an insignificant
effect, it is take, and it was not predicted on our 2011 Biological Opinion
and not included in the incidental take statement" and "The impact zone is
significantly larger than the 150 meters that we predicted in our Biological
Opinion, ranging from well over 400m and potentially up to 1000 meters or
more from the federal channel". Furthermore "the sedimentation is clearly
detectable and measureable and has clearly adversely affected ESA listed
corals", and "The sedimentation has also resulted in reduced function of the
designated critical habitat surrounding the project areas over a significant
length of time, and there is no indication that the sedimentation effects
will be temporary."]

Statement 3: "The greatest threat was the regional 2014 bleaching event
followed by regional white plague disease that ranged from Monroe to Palm
Beach County well outside the dredging area (and is still ongoing)."
- Although we did experience bleaching and disease in the fall of 2014 at
many sites around south Florida, it would be wrong to assume that the huge
loss of coral near PortMiami was due to this. Bleaching preceded the
disease, and did not even start until weeks (or in some cases months) after
many corals were buried in sediment. By the late summer of 2014 there were
numerous, independent reports (as exemplified by the May 2014 NMFS letter
above) pointing to massive losses of corals due to sediment accumulation.
These reports stated that the sediment was causing partial or complete
mortality, burial of the skeletons, and loss of critical habitat because the
hard bottom substrate was now covered with sediment and dredge mud (the
appearance of which is very different from the coarse sediment that occurs
naturally in the area). The argument that corals near PortMiami were killed
by bleaching and disease is a red herring. Most of the corals in the area
were already mainly dead by the time those impacts came along, and this was
visibly, and obviously, apparent to any diver who observed it. 

Statement 4: "I can appreciate the feeling of the many who have seen the
unavoidable plumes that result from any dredging but it is something that
none of us can stop"
- Most of the sediment released into the channel is coming from scows that
transport the dredge material offshore. These scows leaked a tremendous
amount of fine sediment during the dredge operation because they were
routinely "dewatered", which means that once the dredge material was loaded
onto the scow, water was drained off to lighten the load and minimize the
number of round-trips to dump the spoil. You can imagine what the effect of
draining the water off a load of recently dredged material looks like. All
the fine sediment (together with whatever chemicals might have accumulated
for decades in the sediment at the bottom of the Port Miami shipping
channel) were released into the water column where they were then swept onto
adjacent reef by prevailing currents. One of the lawsuits to which you refer
actually asked the Army Corps to stop dewatering their scows in the channel.
If the Army Corps has done from the start this much of the sediment damage
might have been prevented. 

Statement 5: "The danger is that strong contestable language now may
backfire and create deleterious effects on the credibility of coral
scientists in the future.'
- I could not disagree more. The danger is that if we don't speak up now
about what was lost, why, and how it could be prevented, similar dredge
operations elsewhere will look to Miami as an example of how dredging should
be undertaken in an area with endangered corals. They would mistakenly
conclude, from emails like yours, that effects were minimal and unavoidable.
One simple way to help avoid a repeat of PortMiami is that, in future, the
environmental consultants responsible for assessing whether or not damage
has occurred should not be chosen by the Army Corps or its subcontractors
(in this case, the dredging company). Such an arrangement sets up a very
obvious conflict of interest. I think the credibility of coral scientists is
much more likely to be damaged if we sit back and allow ourselves to be
persuaded that sediment is not harming these corals, when there are many
lines of direct, first-hand, independent sources of information, none of
whom have such conflicts of interest, and all of whom are telling us that
corals are dying from sediment smothering.

Statement 6: "A year from now the area in question will likely look no
different than nearby areas not touched by this dredging."
- Dredging has killed tens of thousands of corals in the vicinity of the
Port of Miami. Many of these corals were old/large enough to be
reproductively mature, and they were all subject to long-term selection for
robustness and stress tolerance. They may not have looked pretty, but they
were nevertheless very valuable. This large pool of stress-resistant corals,
including a dozen or more reef-building species, might have helped provide
the raw material for other corals in the region to survive future stress
through interbreeding. Moreover, this area may have been an important
stepping-stone connecting the reefs of the Florida Keys with the corals of
Broward County to the north. By destroying the critical habitat for new
corals to recruit to, the ability of these reefs to bounce back has been
reduced/eliminated. Moreover, if widespread bleaching and disease does
continue to ravage South Florida's reefs, how do we know that the very
corals that were just killed by sediment might not have had a
better-than-average chance of surviving bleaching or disease? We may look at
the choked moonscape of PortMiami next year and find that other reefs
further away also look bad due to bleaching and disease. But perhaps the
corals we smothered were the very ones we might have depended on to help
these other reefs bounce back... 

Just because reefs might not look like they came straight out of a National
Geographic documentary doesn't mean they aren't extremely valuable and
worthy of protection, especially when they are in the back yard of a city
that thrives on clean coasts and healthy marine resources to drive its
tourist economy.

Best regards

Andrew
_______________________
Andrew C. Baker, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation 
Department of Marine Biology and Ecology
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
University of Miami
4600 Rickenbacker Cswy.
Miami, FL 33149, USA
Voice: +1 (305) 421-4642
Fax: +1 (305) 421-4642
Email: abaker at rsmas.miami.edu 
Visit the lab on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cr2lab 

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Eugene Shinn
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:08 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: [Coral-List] Coral killing continues in Florida

Sarah, Your rant re, "killing hundreds of acres of endangered
corals"---- the Corps of Engineers, "bulldozing crusade," "Port of Miami
disaster," and "nightmare" may be a little over stated. That kind of
language may create some excitement with some but is not likely to get you
anywhere with the agencies involved. Good scientists should not rant that
way or misidentify Golith Grouper poop for reproductive fluid as you did on
the list last year. Did you apologize to readers for that mistake?

My former office on Fisher Island overlooked the dredging area in question
for 15 years. I know it well and although there were some corals there it is
a stretch to consider it a coral reef. That limestone area had been
essentially devoid of reef-building corals for millennia. 
The few corals that were there were only the hardiest, weediest species. 
In fact we could not grow corals in the water from government cut that we
collected there at high tide for experiments. Admittedly, that was before
the Virginia Key sewage outfall was moved further offshore. I am aware that
a large amount of money was spent moving corals and on monitoring the
effects of the dredging spoil on the few live corals found there today
(coral cover off Miami-Dade County is routinely measured at a half percent
or less by SECREMP). Some divers have photographed sediment accumulations on
corals near the dredge area but were not aware the sediment was on corals
already dead. The greatest threat was the regional 2014 bleaching event
followed by regional white plague disease that ranged from Monroe to Palm
Beach County well outside the dredging area (and is still ongoing). The
scientists doing the work of course cannot discuss the results of the
required monitoring studies at the present time because of ongoing lawsuits.
I suspect that at sometime in the future many interesting publications and
reports will become available for more critical review. I can appreciate the
feeling of the many who have seen the unavoidable plumes that result from
any dredging but it is something that none of us can stop. The danger is
that strong contestable language now may backfire and create deleterious
effects on the credibility of coral scientists in the future. A year from
now the area in question will likely look no different than nearby areas not
touched by this dredging.Gene

-- 

No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
College of Marine Science Room 221A
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__coral.aoml.noaa.gov_mail
man_listinfo_coral-2Dlist&d=BQICAg&c=y2w-uYmhgFWijp_IQN0DhA&r=E_r81RSK58Skv3
yVGb8AtumSvn0R0Y_JJfCX15aAeUk&m=puCuOj1RDQ8Po7Gtx1c1ScgoWR-aqOX3sQG-LevsdRo&
s=u3whWWSb1rcoOYsHRRb-zwRgBdZhFpNxoE0pAw0ox6U&e= 