Apparent failure by the National Park Service to fully support its fundamental mission at Biscayne National Park, "to conserve the scenery; natural and historic objects; and the wildlife therein," led the National Parks Conservation Association on Thursday to sue the agency over the condition of the park's ailing coral reef ecosystem.
Once upon a time, the reef in Biscayne, the country's largest marine park, featured a wondrous and bountiful array of species, from bonefish, tarpon and oysters to groupers, barracuda, spiny lobster, and lustrous parrotfish. But, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Florida's burgeoning population and coastal development have pushed the state's reefs into a four-decade decline, "with many reefs losing more than half of their coral cover."
While the National Park Service has spent 15 years in public discussion to develop a plan to protect the reefs within Biscayne's waters -- "(R)oughly two thirds of the Florida Reef Tract lie within Biscayne National Park and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary," notes the EPA -- the agency's best efforts have failed.
The state and the Park Service had seemed in agreement in recent years to create a Marine Reserve Zone that would cover approximately 6 percent of the park's waters, or 10,522 acres, and protect 2,663 acres of the park's coral reefs. Significantly, placing that acreage of coral reefs into a marine reserve would contribute towards the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force's goal of having 20 percent of Florida's reefs within such reserves.
But there was opposition from the fishing industry as well as Florida's congressional delegation. The pushback prompted the National Park Service to shelve the marine reserve plan, and this past February the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission adopted a fisheries plan that failed to include such a reserve.
Under that plan, negotiated with the Park Service, the federal agency "agreed to continue commercial fishing" and to put off creating a marine reserve or phasing out commercial fishing "for many more years and perhaps forever," the 37-page lawsuit charged.
The lawsuit also pointed out that when Biscayne was designated a national park in 1980, Congress directed in the park's Establishment Act that the Interior secretary could limit or prohibit fishing "in the interest of sound conservation to achieve the purposes for which the park is established."
NPCA's lawsuit (attached below), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, addresses the agency’s failure to create a marine reserve and phase out commercial fishing in the park.
“Decades ago, Biscayne National Park’s coral reefs were healthy and colorful, teeming with fish. Today’s reality is much different," said Dr. Melissa Abdo, NPCA's Sun Coast regional director. "Because of the Park Service’s failure to act, overfishing has led to the severe decline of many reef fish species and the degradation of Biscayne’s marine environment. This damage is leaving Biscayne’s coral reef ecosystem less resilient to climate change, coral bleaching, coral disease, and pollution. Without decisive action, this decline could spell ruin for the park’s coral reef ecosystem and an integral part of South Florida’s thriving tourist economy."
According to the EPA, "Florida’s coral reefs represent the third largest barrier reef ecosystem in the world. The Florida Reef Tract extends from St. Lucie Inlet in Martin County (north of Miami) to the Dry Tortugas west of the Florida Keys."
Many reef fish species in Biscayne are overfished, with some literally on the verge of collapse, NPCA said.
"Intensive fishing and the impacts of fishing gear on reefs have also contributed to the decline of Biscayne’s coral reefs, which provide important habitat to wildlife like lobsters, reef fish, and sea turtles, which are also sharply declining in health. Today, there is less living coral reef in Biscayne than ever recorded," the advocacy group said in a release.
“Biscayne is a national park, the underwater equivalent of Yosemite, and as a national park its current state is simply unacceptable," Abdo said. "That’s why NPCA, along with recreational fishers, boaters, divers and park lovers from all over the country, is calling for the Park Service to create a small marine reserve area in the park and gradually phase out commercial fishing. The Park Service already made a commitment to the public to take these specific actions. They put it in writing. Yet after all this time, they have failed to act, even as conditions worsen within the park.
“The Park Service is bound by law to protect our most valuable natural and cultural resources that belong to all of us," she added. "We will hold them accountable, so that current and future generations have the opportunity to experience the underwater treasures protected by America’s largest marine national park.”
Comments
Hi folks. Sorry I'm late to this.
Has anyone else been surprised at who was the first person in a while to speak well of "poll tax?"
Who spoke of a poll tax? If you want to try to be snarky, you should first work on your reading comprehension.
Gosh, Rick, I just didn't know how to respond to that pole tax comment. I know he was aiming it at me; but, to be truly honest, none of my ancestors even came from Poland.
Ohhh, he was talking about a pole test! That won't work either; most of the various counties and municipalities wouldn't be able to find enough courthouse workers who could speak the language to administer such a test. The language is actually fairly complex, although a lot of the people living in Poland nowadays speak perfectly fine English; but then again, we don't and the cost of bringing enough folks over from England to administer the test to Polish folks living here in America could be quite high.
Hump --- as far as I can tell, a sentence similar to "Submitted by ecbuck on December 17, 2020 - 7:59am Hump. Your ignorance regarding our government and the principles of our founding is appalling. Makes one think hard about requiring a poll test." --- sounds a helluva lot like someone is fondly lamenting the absence of such a tax, in order to slap up sida the head those free thinkers impertinent enough to question Buck's teaching credentials.
sounds a helluva lot like someone is fondly lamenting the absence of such a tax,
Except that "someone" said nothing about a poll tax. Back to your baseless accusations I see.
Test, Tax...as if that makes you look better.
Rick - hey, you never were one to worry about accuracy and the facts.