Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Public Comments to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (10/28/10)
Public Comment to the Task Force; Coral Gables, Florida, October 28, 2010
By John Arthur Marshall,
Representing the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.
As briefed by Mark Musaus, we applaud expansion of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem by the proposed establishment of the Everglades Headwaters and Fisheating Creek National Wildlife Refuges, as well as the proposed additions to the Florida Panther NWR, and other activities to increase spatial extent of natural area, noting that this meets the first goal/objective of CERP Table 5-1 in a most significant way.
We applaud the inclusion of Ecosystem Services as an emerging theme in the Task Force 2010 Plan for Coordinating Science, as noted in the Everglades Coalition resolution.
Connecting the dots: Recent Everglades Coalition members’ ecosystem services value studies and analyses indicate the high value of restoring and preserving spatial extent of the Everglades, with benefit to costs ratios exceeding 4:1, and in some cases much higher.
While methods used in two Everglades analyses differed significantly, the result ends up in the same ball park. Case studies also indicate that Benefit:Cost in the case of CERP will be somewhere in the vicinity of 6:1. This includes our 2010 Summer Intern work on Valuing Ecosystem Services of a Restored River of Grass, with handouts available.
The 6:1 B/C ratio exceeds the US Army Corps of Engineer’s go-no-go criteria of B/C greater than 1.5, and appears to make more sense than the somewhat arbitrary and esoteric assignment of habitat units, in B/C analysis.
With respect to pinning the tail on the donkey regarding the absolute value of restoring ecosystems, we recognize that the work done is a best estimate of projected outcomes.
We feel that analytic value is in consistently applying the methodology to different configurations to provide analysis of alternatives in a situation like the River of Grass workshop deliberations. That said, this does provide a general sense of value.
Should the ESV-B/C approach be applied to CERP without a overt mandate for doing so? Given the robust B/C ratios, maybe it is time to give more consideration to the ESV-B/C approach for CERP decision-support, with the synthesis of benefits in economic dollar value, that fully meets the WRDA Section 601 requirements to report to Congress the benefits to the natural system and the human environment achieved, in understandable terms.
We note that The DRAFT Report to Congress does give some credit to Defenders of Wildlife for Valuing Ecosystem Services. We concur with NRC that failure to put a value on Ecosystems leaves them at zero value, and at high risk of not meeting no net loss of wetlands policy.
Finally, as a matter of ethics, if we can’t put value added by our work, what does that say for us, and for hope of restoring the Everglades? Thanks for considering the EvCo resolution.
John Arthur Marshall
By John Arthur Marshall,
Representing the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.
As briefed by Mark Musaus, we applaud expansion of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem by the proposed establishment of the Everglades Headwaters and Fisheating Creek National Wildlife Refuges, as well as the proposed additions to the Florida Panther NWR, and other activities to increase spatial extent of natural area, noting that this meets the first goal/objective of CERP Table 5-1 in a most significant way.
We applaud the inclusion of Ecosystem Services as an emerging theme in the Task Force 2010 Plan for Coordinating Science, as noted in the Everglades Coalition resolution.
Connecting the dots: Recent Everglades Coalition members’ ecosystem services value studies and analyses indicate the high value of restoring and preserving spatial extent of the Everglades, with benefit to costs ratios exceeding 4:1, and in some cases much higher.
While methods used in two Everglades analyses differed significantly, the result ends up in the same ball park. Case studies also indicate that Benefit:Cost in the case of CERP will be somewhere in the vicinity of 6:1. This includes our 2010 Summer Intern work on Valuing Ecosystem Services of a Restored River of Grass, with handouts available.
The 6:1 B/C ratio exceeds the US Army Corps of Engineer’s go-no-go criteria of B/C greater than 1.5, and appears to make more sense than the somewhat arbitrary and esoteric assignment of habitat units, in B/C analysis.
With respect to pinning the tail on the donkey regarding the absolute value of restoring ecosystems, we recognize that the work done is a best estimate of projected outcomes.
We feel that analytic value is in consistently applying the methodology to different configurations to provide analysis of alternatives in a situation like the River of Grass workshop deliberations. That said, this does provide a general sense of value.
Should the ESV-B/C approach be applied to CERP without a overt mandate for doing so? Given the robust B/C ratios, maybe it is time to give more consideration to the ESV-B/C approach for CERP decision-support, with the synthesis of benefits in economic dollar value, that fully meets the WRDA Section 601 requirements to report to Congress the benefits to the natural system and the human environment achieved, in understandable terms.
We note that The DRAFT Report to Congress does give some credit to Defenders of Wildlife for Valuing Ecosystem Services. We concur with NRC that failure to put a value on Ecosystems leaves them at zero value, and at high risk of not meeting no net loss of wetlands policy.
Finally, as a matter of ethics, if we can’t put value added by our work, what does that say for us, and for hope of restoring the Everglades? Thanks for considering the EvCo resolution.
John Arthur Marshall
SIP 2010 Poster Paper
Sure we talked about the SIP Poster Paper...but did we ever share it with you? Here it is for your viewing pleasure...
follow the link for a PDF version:
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Show your support for National Wildlife Refuges
This from our friends at the National Wildlife Refuge Association...
America’s Great Outdoors initiative in an effort to start a national dialogue about the great places across our nation to get outside and how the federal government and private citizens can help protect these places for future generations. After months of collecting input from Americans, the President will announce how he plans to conserve our great outdoors this Fall.
Refuges need YOUR help to make sure they are key part of any Presidential announcement -- don’t let the National Wildlife Refuge System remain America’s best kept SECRET!
Please go to America’s Great Outdoors website and cast your vote for the National Wildlife Refuge System – we need AT LEAST 4000 votes!
The National Wildlife Refuge System ought to be a cornerstone of this Initiative. As committed refuge supporters you’ve experienced the wonders of refuges and you know how important creating and conserving refuges are to preserving our natural legacy. So please cast your vote now and tell the President how valuable refuges are to the American public.
If you haven’t already registered with the website, click here to register. After you’ve completed the process, follow the instructions below.
If you have already registered with the America’s Great Outdoors website, please click on this link to go to Conserving America’s Wildlife Heritage: Strengthening our National Wildlife Refuge System There’s a box on the left with an orange border that shows the vote total so far. Click on the GREEN “Promote” text to cast your vote and leave a comment about your refuge if you wish.
We need to make sure the Refuge System is no longer America’s best-kept secret. Thank you for speaking up for wildlife and the refuges they call home!
Regards,
Joan Patterson
Director of Grassroots Outreach
National Wildlife Refuge Association
And here is a shot of our favorite Refuge:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
