DOCSLIB.ORG

Save the Reef

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Save the Reef Save the Reef A member group of Lock the Gate Alliance www.savethereef.net.au Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Phone: +61 2 6277 3526 Fax: +61 2 6277 5818 [email protected] Submission to the Senate Inquiry on The adequacy of the Australian and Queensland Governments’ efforts to stop the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, including but not limited to: Points a–k. Save the Reef would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to make a submission and would also like to speak further if there is an opportunity at any public hearings. The Great Barrier Reef is Australia’s greatest natural asset. It is a tourism mecca, a 6 billion dollar economic boon as well as a scientific wonderland. It is a World Heritage Listed property and an acknowledged world wonder. The Great Barrier Reef is part of Australia’s very identity. We are failing to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The efforts to stop the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef are grossly inadequate. It demonstrates that our current system for protecting the environment is broken. Environmental impact statements, conditions, offsets, regulations, enforcement and even the EPBC act, processes meant to protect the environment are being subverted and the impact is apparent. The holes in the “Swiss Cheese” are lining up and have allowed and are continuing to allow further destruction of the Great Barrier Reef when it needs our protection the most. The recent developments in Gladstone are a clear demonstration of the failure of our systems. A World Heritage Great Barrier Reef Island was turned into a site for three gas plants, (with a fourth gas plant also approved despite the expressed concern of the World Heritage Committee). There was an environmental collapse in Gladstone Harbour contributing to destruction of seagrass, and sickness in multiple species including humans. A fishing industry was destroyed and the World Heritage listed harbour was transformed from a blue sanctuary for endangered dugongs, turtles, dolphins, seagrass, into a muddy mess with a leaky bund wall. These failures were eventually acknowledged over two and a half years later in an independent review into the Gladstone Bund Wall. To date in this World Heritage Property no-one has been held accountable and apparently no laws have been broken. Great Barrier Reef World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef World Heritage listed Curtis Island and Gladstone Harbour before Curtis Island and Gladstone Harbour after Even worse Gladstone Harbour has been touted as the model to follow for other port developments up and down the Great Barrier Reef, rather than the disaster to avoid. A cynic might suggest the lesson learnt from Gladstone Harbour is if you want to build oil and gas facilities on a World Heritage Island, or dredge a World Heritage harbour, take shortcuts, cut costs and hide documentation for a few years. Gladstone Ports, a government owned organisation delivered its part of the project not only on time but before its scheduled time. The resulting collapse of the environment and sickness in multiple species including humans, - effectively an example of “ecocide” in Gladstone harbour - was an “unfortunate” development. One might suggest that the social license to continue to dredge the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area was severely damaged by these “unfortunate” events. The failure to protect Curtis Island and Gladstone harbour was apparent internationally and the risk of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area being listed as “In Danger” is in a large part due to the events in Gladstone. 2 Gladstone turbidity average 5.8 NTU (2004) Gladstone Turbidity averages ~20 NTU (2011) Save the Reef has been concerned about government and statutory authorities’ mismanagement, particularly of the southern reef, for many years now. Two recent ‘independent’ inquiries commissioned by the federal government – one while Labor was in office, the second by the Coalition – have been immensely disappointing in their narrow focus and inadequate response to the ecological disaster that has been wreaked upon Gladstone Harbour. The most recent independent review acknowledged significant failings but exonerated all federal officers charged with enforcing federal environmental responsibilities. A number of misleading statements by port officials, government appointed scientists and senior bureaucrats has led us to reflect on wider questions about the haste with which this development has been pursued by all levels of government beginning in 2008. Our concerns begin with the original decision to excise land from the World Heritage Area of Curtis Island for an industrial hub as well as the failure to enforce environmental regulation in Australia’s premier world heritage property. A number of our concerns have already been outlined in submissions to the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone, the Independent Review of the Bund Wall and letters to Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt. They are appended to this submission. It has been disappointing to note the narrow approach of these reviews and the failure to address matters of substance that highlight inadequate management and responsibility for the World Heritage Area. There has been contention around six major areas which we believe need to be fully investigated to restore public confidence: Excision of land within the World Heritage Area 3 Energy Corporations relations with state and federal Governments since 2008 The nature of agreements between Gladstone Ports Corporation [GPC], the LNG companies and the contractors for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project Mismanagement by the federal environment department of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project [WBDDP] Government failure to identify the cause and respond to toxic algal blooms in the inner harbour Impacts on marine life especially seagrass, and endangered species such as turtles, dugongs, whales and dolphins (including the snubfin). Concerns regarding the Management of Gladstone Harbour 1. The excision of land within the GBR world heritage boundaries to create a state development area/industrial precinct: Why was the selection of a site outsourced to an engineering firm and why were World Heritage Values not included as part of any assessment criteria? Was the federal government consulted or informed about land use within the world heritage area? Was UNESCO advised of the plans to industrialise Curtis Is? Was the land sold to the LNG corporations? The ‘Properties’ section within the Queensland Department of State Development is now corporatized and presumably had responsibility for the land sales. Was the excised land sold at market rates? Were any staff paid fees for the land sales? Were public servants with responsibility for compulsorily acquiring and then making the land available to the energy corporations able to benefit financially from the transaction? What part did Mr Harvey, Director of Properties, play in the excision and sales of land? This was public land forcibly acquired from the World Heritage Area and the public have the right to know how this world heritage land was alienated and who precisely profited from it. 4 The Queensland Government made further changes to the Curtis Island precinct in 2010. Were the LNG proponents consulted over the creation of the environmental management precinct in 2010? Was UNESCO’s world heritage committee? Was land that is part of the Environmental Management Precinct provided to the LNG projects for their environmental offsets? Is the state government excising land which the public assumed was already protected as part of the world heritage area, in order to on-sell it to the LNG corporations as offsets? Are they required to purchase it and if so what rates are they charged? 2. Extent of influence of the main 4 energy corporations involved in CSG and LNG development with the state and federal governments. The New South Wales Independent Against Corruption is currently investigating the undue influence that coal mining companies, mining services companies and their lobbyists have had on government decision-making in that state. The diaries for Premiers Bligh and Newman indicate that they have had meetings with major gas corporations prior to government approvals and after public complaints about their improper influence. It is Save the Reef’s view that we need an equivalent investigation into meetings between state and federal government ministers with any individuals representing energy corporations in the lead up to the approvals for csg projects, for LNG projects, and for port infrastructure in Gladstone harbour. It is in the public interest to make the basis of those discussions publicly available including what support and assistance was promised to the energy corporations. 3. Agreements between the Gladstone Ports Corporation, LNG companies and WBDDP contractors. It is clear that Gladstone Ports Corporation placed project deadlines ahead of its environmental responsibilities. GPC whistleblowers, according to reports in the Australian newspaper in December 2013, claim GPC signed commercial contracts with the dredging contractors that gave them payment for any days the dredge was not in use. Consequently we would like to know who signed these commercial contracts which ignored GPC’s environmental responsibilities. In addition we need to know about any agreements Gladstone Ports Corporation has made with the LNG companies. Were
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sample Chapter Algal Blooms
    ALGAL BLOOMS 7 Observations and Remote Sensing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ energy and material transport through the food web, and JSTARS.2013.2265255. they also play an important role in the vertical flux of Pack, R. T., Brooks, V., Young, J., Vilaca, N., Vatslid, S., Rindle, P., material out of the surface waters. These blooms are Kurz, S., Parrish, C. E., Craig, R., and Smith, P. W., 2012. An “ ” overview of ALS technology. In Renslow, M. S. (ed.), Manual distinguished from those that are deemed harmful. of Airborne Topographic Lidar. Bethesda: ASPRS Press. Algae form harmful algal blooms, or HABs, when either Sithole, G., and Vosselman, G., 2004. Experimental comparison of they accumulate in massive amounts that alone cause filter algorithms for bare-Earth extraction from airborne laser harm to the ecosystem or the composition of the algal scanning point clouds. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and community shifts to species that make compounds Remote Sensing, 59,85–101. (including toxins) that disrupt the normal food web or to Shan, J., and Toth, C., 2009. Topographic Laser Ranging and Scanning: Principles and Processes. Boca Raton: CRC Press. species that can harm human consumers (Glibert and Slatton, K. C., Carter, W. E., Shrestha, R. L., and Dietrich, W., 2007. Pitcher, 2001). HABs are a broad and pervasive problem, Airborne laser swath mapping: achieving the resolution and affecting estuaries, coasts, and freshwaters throughout the accuracy required for geosurficial research. Geophysical world, with effects on ecosystems and human health, and Research Letters, 34,1–5. on economies, when these events occur. This entry Wehr, A., and Lohr, U., 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Algal Bloom Response Program
    What are HABs? • Blue-green algae are bacteria that grow in water, contain chlorophyll, and can photosynthesize. They are not a new occurrence. WHEN IN DOUBT, STAY OUT! Kansas Department of Health • When these bacteria reproduce rapidly, For additional information: and Environment it can create a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB). Please visit • HABs can sometimes produce toxins www.kdheks.gov/algae-illness. Harmful that affect people, pets, livestock, and Or call the KDHE HAB Hotline at wildlife. The toxins can affect the skin, 785-296-1664. liver, and nervous system. Algal Bloom • People and animals may be exposed to toxins via ingestion, skin contact, or Response inhalation of contaminated water. Program • The most common human health effects from HABs can include vomiting, diarrhea, skin rashes, eye irritation, and respiratory symptoms. • Boiling water does not remove or Department of Health inactivate toxins from blue-green algae, and Environment and there is no known antidote. • Animal deaths due to HAB toxins have Department of Health been documented, so: and Environment When in doubt, stay out! To protect and improve the health and environment of all Kansans. How else is KDHE working to What causes HABs? HAB Advisory Levels prevent HABs? Blue-green algae are a natural part of water- Threshold Levels based ecosystems. They become a problem Harmful Algal Blooms thrive in the presence when nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) are Watch Warning Closure of excess nutrients such as nitrogen and present in concentrations above what would phosphorus. Thus, KDHE continually works to occur naturally. Under these conditions, algae blue green reduce nutrient input and improve overall can grow very quickly to extreme numbers, cell counts 80,000 250,000 10,000,000 water quality through a series of interrelated resulting in a Harmful Algal Bloom.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Algal Bloom Online Resources
    Harmful Algal Bloom Online Resources General Information • CDC Harmful Algal Bloom-Associated Illnesses Website • CDC Harmful Algal Blooms Feature • EPA CyanoHABs Website • EPA Harmful Algal Blooms & Cyanobacteria Research Website • NOAA Harmful Algal Bloom Website • NOAA Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Control Act Harmful Algal Bloom Monitoring and Tracking • EPA Cyanobacteria Assessment Network (CyAN) Project • NCCOS Harmful Algal Bloom Research Website • NOAA Harmful Algal Bloom Forecasts • USGS Summary of Cyanobacteria Monitoring and Assessments in USGS Water Science Centers • WHO Toxic Cyanobacteria in water: A guide to their public health consequences, monitoring, and management Harmful Algal Blooms and Drinking Water • AWWA Assessment of Blue-Green Algal Toxins in Raw and Finished Drinking Water • EPA Guidelines and Recommendations • EPA Harmful Algal Bloom & Drinking Water Treatment Website • EPA Algal Toxin Risk Assessment and Management Strategic Plan for Drinking Water Document • USGS Drinking Water Exposure to Chemical and Pathogenic Contaminants: Algal Toxins and Water Quality Website Open Water Resources • CDC Healthy Swimming Website - Oceans, Lakes, Rivers • EPA State Resources Website • EPA Beach Act Website • EPA Beach Advisory and Closing On-line Notification (BEACON) • USG Guidelines for Design and Sampling for Cyanobacterial Toxin and Taste-and-Odor Studies in Lakes and Reservoirs • NALMS Inland HAB Program • NOAA Illinois-Indiana and Michigan Sea Grant Beach Manager’s Manual • USGS Field and Laboratory Guide
    [Show full text]
  • Habs in UPWELLING SYSTEMS
    GEOHAB CORE RESEARCH PROJECT: HABs IN UPWELLING SYSTEMS 1 GEOHAB GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS GEOHAB CORE RESEARCH PROJECT: HABS IN UPWELLING SYSTEMS AN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME SPONSORED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON OCEANIC RESEARCH (SCOR) AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (IOC) OF UNESCO EDITED BY: G. PITCHER, T. MOITA, V. TRAINER, R. KUDELA, P. FIGUEIRAS, T. PROBYN BASED ON CONTRIBUTIONS BY PARTICIPANTS OF THE GEOHAB OPEN SCIENCE MEETING ON HABS IN UPWELLING SYSTEMS AND THE GEOHAB SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE February 2005 3 This report may be cited as: GEOHAB 2005. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, GEOHAB Core Research Project: HABs in Upwelling Systems. G. Pitcher, T. Moita, V. Trainer, R. Kudela, P. Figueiras, T. Probyn (Eds.) IOC and SCOR, Paris and Baltimore. 82 pp. This document is GEOHAB Report #3. Copies may be obtained from: Edward R. Urban, Jr. Henrik Enevoldsen Executive Director, SCOR Programme Co-ordinator Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences IOC Science and Communication Centre on The Johns Hopkins University Harmful Algae Baltimore, MD 21218 U.S.A. Botanical Institute, University of Copenhagen Tel: +1-410-516-4070 Øster Farimagsgade 2D Fax: +1-410-516-4019 DK-1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +45 33 13 44 46 Fax: +45 33 13 44 47 E-mail: [email protected] This report is also available on the web at: http://www.jhu.edu/scor/ http://ioc.unesco.org/hab ISSN 1538-182X Cover photos courtesy of: Vera Trainer Teresa Moita Grant Pitcher Copyright © 2005 IOC and SCOR.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Algal Blooms (Habs) and Desalination: a Guide to Impacts, Monitoring, and Management
    Manuals and Guides 78 Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and Desalination: A Guide to Impacts, Monitoring, and Management Edited by: Donald M. Anderson, Siobhan F.E. Boerlage, Mike B. Dixon UNESCO Manuals and Guides 78 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and Desalination: A Guide to Impacts, Monitoring and Management Edited by: Donald M. Anderson* Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA Siobhan F. E. Boerlage Boerlage Consulting Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia Mike B. Dixon MDD Consulting, Kensington Calgary, Alberta, Canada *Corresponding Author’s email: [email protected] UNESCO 2017 Bloom prevention and control 7 BLOOM PREVENTION AND CONTROL Clarissa R. Anderson1, Kevin G. Sellner2, and Donald M. Anderson3 1University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA USA 2Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater MD USA 3Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole MA USA 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 205 7.2 Bloom prevention .................................................................................................................................. 207 7.2.1 Nutrient load reduction .................................................................................................................. 207 7.2.2 Nutrient load .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Algal Blooms
    NSF GK-12 Graduate Fellows Program Award # DGE-0139171 University of North Carolina at Wilmington Harmful Algal Blooms by Tika Knierim, Department of Chemistry This activity is aligned with the 2001 North Carolina Standard Course of Study for 8th Grade Science: Goal # 1 & 2 Algal species sometimes make their presence known as a massive “bloom” of cells that may discolor the water These “blooms” alter marine habitats Every coastal state has reported major blooms Although they are referred to as harmful algal blooms, not all HABs are toxic Toxic blooms are caused by algae that produce potent toxins that can cause massive fish kills, marine mammal deaths, and human illness There are several types of toxins produced by these harmful algae. .commonly the toxins affect the functioning of nerve and muscle cells Toxic blooms have been responsible for causing diarrhea, vomiting, numbness, dizziness, paralysis, and even death The key is how the toxins move through the food web The key to this scenario is bioaccumulation!! BIOACCUMULATION is the process by which compounds accumulate or build up in an organism at a faster rate than they can be broken down. Some organisms, such as krill, mussels, anchovies, and mackerel, have been found to retain toxins in their bodies Today we are going to do a little activity in order to better understand the concept of bioaccumulation and how toxins are transferred through the food chain. Each person will be assigned one of the following organisms: Krill: Seal: Fish: Killer Whale: There is an outbreak of a Harmful Algal Bloom within the boundaries of this classroom, and there is algae (green beads) spread all over the area.
    [Show full text]
  • HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS in COASTAL WATERS: Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation
    Science for Solutions A A Special Joint Report with the Decision Analysis Series No. 10 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation onald F. Boesch, Anderson, Rita A dra %: Shumway, . Tesf er, Terry E. February 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR William M. Daley, Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Secretary The Decision Analysis Series has been established by NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program (COP) to present documents for coastal resource decision makers which contain analytical treatments of major issues or topics. The issues, topics, and principal investigators have been selected through an extensive peer review process. To learn more about the COP or the Decision Analysis Series, please write: NOAA Coastal Ocean Office 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 209 10 phone: 301-71 3-3338 fax: 30 1-7 13-4044 Cover photo: The upper portion of photo depicts a brown tide event in an inlet along the eastern end of Long Island, New York, during Summer 7986. The blue water is Block lsland Sound. Photo courtesy of L. Cosper. Science for Solutions NOAA COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM Special Joint Report with the Decision Analysis Series No. 10 National Fish and WildlifeFoundation HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS IN COASTAL WATERS: Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation Donald F. Boesch, Donald M. Anderson, Rita A. Horner Sandra E. Shumway, Patricia A. Tester, Terry E. Whitledge February 1997 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Fish and Wildlife Foundation D. James Baker, Under Secretary Amos S. Eno, Executive Director Coastal Ocean Office Donald Scavia, Director This ~ublicationshould be cited as: Boesch, Donald F.
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Tidetide —— Anan Overviewoverview
    New York Report #1 March 1998 BROWNBROWN TIDETIDE —— ANAN OVERVIEWOVERVIEW Brown tides are part of growing world-wide incidences of harmful algal blooms (HAB) which are caused by a proliferation of single- celled marine plants called phytoplankton. One species of phytoplankton, the microscopic alga Aureococcus anophagefferens (or-ee-oh-KAHKAH-kus ah-no-fah-JEFJEF-fer-ens) may bloom in such densities that the water turns dark brown, a condition known as “brown tide.” In 1985, severe brown tides were first reported in the Peconic Bays of eastern Long Island, Mass. New York, in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and possibly in Rhode Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Since then, brown tide has Island intermittently occurred with variable intensity in Barnegat Bay and in the bays of Long Island. Connecticut New Narragansett York Bay Locations of BROWN TIDE > .50 million cells / ml NJ, NY & RI Peconic Bays > .25 million cells / ml Great South Brown tide has had particularly detrimental effects Bay on the Peconic Bay ecosystem and the economy of eastern Long Island. During intense bloom conditions, densities of the brown tide organism can approach two million cells per milliliter. These numbers far surpass typical New mixed phytoplankton densities of 100 to 100,000 in Jersey that same volume. Eelgrass beds which serve as spawning and nursery grounds for shellfish and finfish may have Barnegat been adversely impacted by decreased light penetration, Bay at least in part, due to brown tide blooms. The Peconic estuary bay scallop industry, at one point worth almost $2 million annually, was virtually eradicated to a dockside value of merely a few thousand dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.5. Harmful Algal Bloom Events in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem
    Harmful algal bloom events in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Item Type Report Section Authors Pitcher, Grant C.; Fraga, Santiago Publisher IOC-UNESCO Download date 25/09/2021 06:04:52 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/9187 4.5. Harmful algal bloom events in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem For bibliographic purposes, this article should be cited as: Pitcher, G. C. and Fraga, S. 2015. Harmful algal bloom events in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem. In: Oceanographic and biological features in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Valdés, L. and Déniz‐González, I. (eds). IOC‐UNESCO, Paris. IOC Technical Series, No. 115, pp. 175‐182. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1834/9187. The publication should be cited as follows: Valdés, L. and Déniz‐González, I. (eds). 2015. Oceanographic and biological features in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem. IOC‐UNESCO, Paris. IOC Technical Series, No. 115: 383 pp. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1834/9135. The report Oceanographic and biological features in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem and its separate parts are available on‐line at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ioc/ts115. The bibliography of the entire publication is listed in alphabetical order on pages 351‐379. The bibliography cited in this particular article was extracted from the full bibliography and is listed in alphabetical order at the end of this offprint, in unnumbered pages. ABSTRACT We provide a review of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) within the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME). As yet all documented HABs within the region have been associated with the production of one or another toxin.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.0 Global Distribution of Algal Blooms
    The influence of nutrients and temperature on the global distribution of algal blooms Literature Review Compiled by Leanne Sparrow and Kirsten Heimann School of Marine and Tropical Biology James Cook University Funded through the Australian Government’s Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility Project 2.6.1 Identification and impact of invasive pests in the Great Barrier Reef © James Cook University ISBN 9781921359149 This report should be cited as: Sparrow, L. and Heimann, K. (2008) The influence of nutrients and temperature on the global distribution of algal blooms: Literature review. Report to the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns (24pp.). Published by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre on behalf of the Australian Government’s Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. The Australian Government’s Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF) supports world-class, public good research. The MTSRF is a major initiative of the Australian Government, designed to ensure that Australia’s environmental challenges are addressed in an innovative, collaborative and sustainable way. The MTSRF investment is managed by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), and is supplemented by substantial cash and in-kind investments from research providers and interested third parties. The Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited (RRRC) is contracted by DEWHA to provide program management and communications services for the MTSRF. This publication is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, information or educational purposes subject to inclusion of a sufficient acknowledgement of the source. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
    [Show full text]
  • Socio-Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms in Southwest Florida
    QUANTIFYING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS of HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS in SOUTHWEST FLORIDA in 2018 Project Sponsored by the West Coast Inland Navigation District and The Marine Industries Association of Southwest Florida and Tampa Bay Christa Court, Joao Ferreira , Andrew Ropicki, Xiaohui Qiao, Bijeta Saha University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Food & Resource Economics Department July 2021 Food and Resource Economics Department Gainesville, Florida ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research report was developed through funding the research team and photos for this report. We would also from the West Coast Inland Navigation District (WCIND) and like to thank all industry representatives that completed the The Marine Industries Association of Southwest Florida and surveys on the 2018 Red Tide event, this information was Tampa Bay. Valuable information for the study was provided invaluable to this research product. Finally, the project team by Justin McBride, Executive Director of WCIND as well as would like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Jin-won Kim John Good and several members of The Marine Industries in the analysis of the impacts of the 2018 Red Tide event on Association of Southwest Florida and Tampa Bay who Airbnb properties. provided their time and knowledge through discussions with TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................... 3 Economic Impacts of the 2017-2019 Red Tide Event ...... 21 Introduction ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to Algae and Other “Scums” in Ponds, Lakes, Streams and Rivers
    The Boone and Kenton County Conservation Districts, Burlington, KY The Campbell County Conservation District, Alexandria, KY Field guide to algae and other “scums” in ponds, lakes, streams and rivers Miriam Steinitz Kannan and Nicole Lenca Northern Kentucky University Field Guide to algae and other “scums” TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction Purpose of the guide—How to use the guide 3 Floating Macroscopic Plants Duckweeds (Lemna, Spirodella) 4 Watermeal (Wolffia) 4 Waterferns (Azolla) 4 Floating Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Microcystis 5 Aphanizomenon 6 Anabaena 7 Floating or attached Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Oscillatoria, Lyngbya, Phormidium, Plankthotrix 8 Attached Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Nostoc 9 Euglena and other flagellated algae Euglena, Phacus, Dinobryon, Prymnesium and Dinoflagellates 10 Diatom Blooms 11 Filamentous Green Algae Spirogyra, Mougeotia and Zygnema 12 Cladophora and Hydrodictyon 13 Bacterial Scums Iron Bacteria -Sphaerotilus 14 Protozoan Scums 15 Zooplankton scums 16 Algae control methods 17 Recommended Web sites 18 Acknowledgements 19 2 Introduction Purpose of this Guide This guide is intended for individuals who work with farm ponds, for watershed groups, homeowners and anyone interested in quickly identifying an algal bloom or scum that appears in a freshwater system. Such blooms usually appear during the summer and fall in temperate regions. Most blooms are the result of nutrient enrichment of the waterway. Of significant concern are blue-green algal blooms (cyanobacteria). Some of these produce liver and/or brain toxins that can be lethal to most fish and livestock. Some of the toxins can also be carcinogenic. The macroscopic appearance of many different genera of algae can be similar and therefore field identification must be verified by using a compound microscope.
    [Show full text]