Minority Report

On the

Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative

Final Report

First of all, let us state our full support for the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative's goal of procuring significantly more public funding to "protect, improve, and enhance the bay's resources." Adequate funding is necessary for any effort to produce meaningful results, and the long term protection of Biscayne Bay is certainly no exception.

· Funding to mark channels, seagrass beds, and coral areas, and to provide maintenance for markers and signage;

· Improve coordinated public education and outreach;

· Increase access to the bay to those who will use it in a manner that will preserve it for future generations;

· Management strategies for Biscayne Bay must include coordinated public education and outreach among various groups, including direct users of the bay, with an emphasis on boaters (emphasis ours)

· Develop economically sound methods to restore and maintain freshwater wetland, coastal mangrove, benthic seagrass and coral communities

· Preserve water-dependant uses and facilities along the bay shoreline

· Encourage the use of waterfront property along the bay and the Miami River where appropriate for job-producing, water-dependent commercial activity (emphasis ours) that provides adequate protection to the environment

· Increase funding for enforcement, public information, signage and regulatory efforts to increase compliance rate;

· Expand the Marine Advisory Support Team to include an interagency marine regulatory task force to address bayside enforcement issues;

· Designate a common marine law enforcement radio frequency

We take issue, however, with a number of recommendations which will create new committees and/or "action plans" that we believe will have regulatory impact, despite claims to the contrary. It was our understanding that the existing regulatory framework was determined to be sufficient to protect the bay, and that improvements should focus more on enforcement and compliance rather than on promulgating new regulations. Unfortunately, it is our experience that regulatory agencies have a tendency to treat goals and policy recommendations of quasi-regulatory committees with the same level of zeal as they do statutory mandates. In many instances, these plans become "legislation" by reference, often without public input.

For this reason, we object very strongly to the following recommendations:

· Funding a Science Committee to coordinate scientific research, monitoring and restoration activities; while we support scientific research and recognize its value, we are convinced this group will not be balanced in its opinions;

· The establishment of a Biscayne Bay Project Coordination Team and a Biscayne Bay Action Plan; we are concerned that such a team, if not made up of all bay stakeholders equally, could become a "loose cannon" that could come up with objectionable recommendations without sufficient public input or adequate controls; In sum, we are concerned that environmental protection would override any concern for economic or social considerations.

· Refine water quality standards used to indicate the presence of sewage; we believe this proposal is too vague and are concerned that the new standards will target boats without sufficient background data;

· Develop water quality targets necessary to prevent water quality degradation; same concern as above;

· Pursue the goal of identifying and eliminating all sources of degradation; same concern as above;

· Carrying capacity of Biscayne Bay should be determined and not exceeded; we object very strongly to this proposal. However noble the concept, who will determine how "capacity" is measured, and how

· this will be enforced? We truly believe this can't be done. Also, as with other attempts at growth management, this would most likely be challenged in the courts.

· "The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act is inviolate and should never be weakened." However beneficial it may be, no law should ever be "cast in stone". In fact, the Act has unintentionally produced a huge focus on marina development on non-State-owned submerged land. As a result, it has become impossible to obtain consent for use of sovereignty submerged land due to the Act's "extreme hardship" requirement and in turn new marinas can't be built. This denies new points of access to the bay to boaters.

We also have concerns with several aspects of the BBPI process:

· the structure, which was set prior to any volunteers being asked to participate, should have been developed with input from at least the Co-Chairs;

· the interests of the primary users of Biscayne Bay - boaters - were not well represented on the survey teams and the Policy Development Committee, and little effort was made to seek their perspective;

· makeup of and attendance by the various survey teams was very often unbalanced, particularly in terms of lack of participation by the private sector, due to meetings being scheduled during the work week, and often for the entire day;

· this same problem affected the Policy Development Committee, which was responsible for approving the content of the final report;

· this lack of balance by definition skewed the efforts for consensus, and most important in our view, has produced a report that favors the views of regulatory agencies and environmental groups

We strongly believe the report's tone clearly emphasizes environmental considerations and recommendations far more than economic ones. However, the Final Report makes a very important statement that is unfortunately buried in the text of the section on "Population and Economic Growth":

"Taken altogether, bay-related commercial and recreational activities may account for approximately 15 - 20 percent of the local economy." (emphasis ours)

If even close to being accurate, this clearly shows the need for a balanced approach to bay management that gives economic considerations equal weight to environmental ones.

A glaring omission from the report's educational sections is the critical importance of boater education and support for the value of responsible boating. This is one of the primary goals of the Marine Council, and should be a key recommendation in the report.

Perhaps an even more glaring omission from the report is any mention of fishing and fishermen, both recreational and commercial, beyond three references that are very negative in tone, specifically:

· "Finally, commercial and recreational fishing are thought to be have contributed substantially to resource change in Biscayne Bay." (Emphasis ours).

· "The combined effects of the commercial and recreational fleets have contributed to increased fishing pressure."

· "Only a well-informed public and its representatives can protect the bay from the increasing pressures

of …" (several things, including) "…damage related to fishing techniques."

The fact is that many fishermen, both commercial and recreational, are as concerned with species population and habitat as anyone, and are making concerted efforts to help through groups such as the Coastal Conservation Association of Florida, The Billfish Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association, and the Center for Sustainable Fisheries at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School. The vast majority of fishermen fully respect the bay and its resources, and are totally supportive of any efforts to help maintain and grow fishing stocks in the bay.

Last but not least, we have grave misgivings that the great majority of any funding that might come from this Partnership Initiative would, according to the recommendations in the final report, go not to the Coordination Team of bay stakeholders but to various regulatory agencies. In our opinion, this removes a critical element of control by those most concerned with the bay, and makes any input to and monitoring of results much more difficult.

Despite these concerns, we believe passionately in the importance of Biscayne Bay and its long term health, and we fully support a balanced effort to both protect the Bay and at the same time maximize its benefits to the South Florida community.

Respectfully submitted,

Philip B. Everingham

President, The Marine Council