Presented at Reef Relief’s Annual Membership Meeting, July, 1997, Key West, Florida

CORALS IN CRISIS SAY EXPERTS

Reef Relief’s annual membership meeting featured presentations by Craig Quirolo, Reef Relief’s founder and Director of Marine Projects, Katy Thacker of the Negril Coral Reef Preservation Society and Dr. James Porter of the University of Georgia.

Reef Relief’s Annual Membership Meeting, held Wednesday evening the Pier House Caribbean Spa, the prime event of Reef Awareness Week featured Craig Quirolo’s “State of the Reef” Address, a presentation of the Negril Coral Reef Preservation Society on Jamaica’s conservation programs as well as a captivating discussion entitled “A Pox Upon Your House: Coral disease in the Florida Keys” by Dr. James Porter of the University of Georgia.

Quirolo’s presentation included a review of the cumulative data of his on-going coral monitoring survey, now in its fifth year. The coral diseases have accelerated beyond our wildest expectations — “a coral crises of one thousand percent increase in coral disease over the past year,” noted Quirolo.

He showed slides of corals attacked by a variety of diseases. Most remarkable were recently taken slides of corals in Cuba that showed similar disease infestations. “The increase in coral diseases extends beyond the Florida Keys — oceans know no political boundaries,” added Quirolo.

Katy Thacker, executive director of the Negril Coral Reef Preservation Society, stressed the long term importance of collaborating on a regional basis, citing the multi-year cooperation between her organization and that of REEF RELIEF in efforts to install reef mooring buoys, improve water quality, launch educational programs and implement coral reef monitoring surveys.

“We cannot over-emphasize the importance of a regional focus when looking at conserving coral reef ecosystems,” added Ms. Thacker. She described a community-based programs throughout the Negril, Jamaica watershed that have heightened awareness and concern for the protection of Negril’s coral reefs.

Dr. Porter’s talk included a review of developing coral diseases in the Florida Keys. Dr. Porter, a highly trained biologist, stated: “I’m amazed at the proliferation of new diseases and the spread of better known diseases in the Florida Keys.”

The Environmental protection Agency’s Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has begin funding special studies of coral diseases that includes an analysis epidemeology of these diseases.

Dr. Porter’s coral disease team includes Dr. Esther Peters of Tetratech, Dr. Eric Mueller of the Pigeon Key Foundation and the support of Reef Relief in the Key West area in surveying a growing list that includes White Pox, Blackband, Yellowband, White Pox II, Yellow Blotch and Red Spots.

“In some cases we don’t know whether it is a bacterium, a fungus, a virus, or a protazoa — we don’t know enough,” lamented the scientist.

INCREASED EVERGLADES FLOWS IMPACT CORAL REEFS

A talk by Dr. Brian Lapointe during the 1997 Reef Awareness Week called “Coral Reefs, Seagrasses and the Sargasso Sea”Dr. Brian Lapointe of Harborbranch Oceanographic Institution addressed a full house for the Reef Awareness Week luncheon July 25th, 1997 at Cheeca Lodge in Islamorada.His talk, entitled “Coral Reefs Seagrasses and the Sargasso Sea,” detailed in the dynamics of pelagic Sargassum, the floating seaweed in the Sargasso Sea and adjacent waters.Dr. Lapointe’s recent field research indicated the highest growth rate and biomass of Sargassum occurs in the Florida Straits and the Gulfstream where land-based run-off enriches the drifting plants with nitrogen and phosphorus.Recent observations during 1996 indicate new epiphyte or algal overgrowth on these floating communities, which serve as critical habitat for juvenile loggerhead turtles once they leave their sandy nests on-shore and head out to sea.”There the turtles join a myriad of fish and other sea-life that depend upon the floating seaweeds for protection and nutrition,” stated Lapointe.The discussion led upstream to consider the increased levels of chlorophyll, nitrogen and phosphorus levels contained in the Everglades runoff and wastewater discharges in the Florida Keys.Dr. Lapointe presented graphs and data documenting that the increased flow of water from the Everglades into Florida bay over the last few years has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in harmful nutrients, chlorophyll and turbidity, and the decline of the downstream coral reefs.Wastewater discharges in the Keys have also contributed to to the over-enrichment of local waters.Lapointe reported the results of his USPA-funded study of Looe Key reef that found chlorophyll levels averaged 0.7 micrograms per liter in 1966.This level exceeds the critical threshold for eutrophication of coral reefs as established by the case studies of Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, Barbados, and inshore reefs of the Australian Great Barrier Reef.Likewise, nitrogen levels at Looe Key were above critical thresholds for healthy coral reefs as evidenced by the “pea-soup” green water at the world famous reef.Lapointe quoted Dr. James Porter of the University of Georgia of the University of Georgia, who stated that his USEPA studies reflect a thousand percent increase in coral diseases in the Keys in the past year at the randomly-selected sites he is monitoring.The discussion that followed identified potential solutions such as the immediate need for advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) throughout the Keys and official recognition of the nitrogen problem in the Everglades.Danny Johnson of the Upper Keys Citizens Association, who co-hosted the event, noted that a citizen committee has been appointed by the Monroe County Commission to help design and implement a Master Wastewater Plan.Lapointe recommended that the National Academy of Sciences appoint a technical oversight committee to monitor the south Florida ecosystem effort.

Reef Health: Measures of Change Scientific Panel Discussion Yields Useful Information

As part of Reef Awareness Week, Reef Relief hosted a Scientific Panel Discussion Thursday evening at the Hilton Resort. Panelists Dr. Bill Alevizon, Dr. Brian Lapointe, and Reef Relief Director Craig Quirolo presented information on the changing nature of coral reefs around the world. The audience participated in a discussion of how to determine if a reef is healthy.Some of the answers were surprising and offer a quick report card for those who visit coral reefs. Fish density is not an indicator of a healthy reef; rather a diversity of species in a small area is a better parameter of a healthy coral reef. The quality of the fish populations is another parameter; fish with lesions and diseases indicate that all is not well.The color and visibility of the water is another easy test. Clean, clear ocean waters that appear to be blue or turquoise and the depth of clarity are sure indicators of a clean ocean. Yellow or green water is a sign of an abundance of chlorophyll in the water column and this provides the growth mechanism for harmful algal blooms that out-compete the corals for habitat. Scientists often measure the level of dissolved nitrogen in the water column to determine if there are too many nutrients to support healthy reef growth. An overabundance of nutrients in the water column depletes oxygen levels and may lead to eutrophication or the “stuffing” of a reef by harmful algal growth.The corals themselves can be a signal of reef health. A uniform color on the entire coral colony, the presence of an abundance of healthy coralheads in an area, and a uniform shape to the corals-neither inflated nor deflated polyps-all signal healthy conditions. Scientists often measure the percentage of coral coverage as a measure of reef health. Soft corals such as sea fans should not be torn, nor exhibit abrasions, streaks of unusual color, or fungal growth on them.Sea urchin density is often noted as a measure of reef health, because they are algal grazers. However, a coral reef that has too much nuisance algae can never become balanced by grazers alone. Other indicators of a balanced healthy coral reef are the presence of keystone species such as turtles, conch and dolphin.Reef Relief will incorporate this information into an on-line chat session so that people from all over the world can learn more about whether their coral reefs are healthy or exhibiting the signals of change. By using these simple standards, anyone can determine whether they are visiting a healthy coral reef and increase their knowledge of protecting coral reefs.

1* JOAN B. ROSE,1 SUNNY JIANG,1 CHRIS KELLOGG,1 AND EUGENE A. SHINN2

This graphic was created as part of Reef Relief’s Clean Water Campaign to educate the public on why it was critical to have advanced wastewater treatment throughout the Florida  Keys.  As a result of years of efforts, the Key West sewer outfall has been phased out with advanced wastewater treatment and efforts are underway throughout the Florida Keys to upgrade sewage treatment to state standards that require advanced treatment.  Another Reef Relief effort was creation of a No Discharge Zone for boater sewage that  is now Florida Keys-wide.

Nutrient Inputs from the Watershed

Esstuaries Vol. 15 No. 4 p 465-476 December 1992 http://www.erf.org/estuaries-coasts

Brian E. Lapointe^{1, 2} and Mark W. Clark²

Abstract  Widespread use of septic tanks in the Florida Keys increase the nutrient concentrations of limestone groundwaters that discharge into shallow nearshore waters, resulting in coastal eutrophication. This study characterizes watershed nutrient inputs, transformations, and effects along a land-sea gradient stratified into four ecosystems that occur with increasing distance from land: manmade canal systems (receiving waters of nutrient inputs), seagrass meadows, patch reefs, and offshore bank reefs. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), the primary limiting nutrient, was significantly elevated in canal systems compared to the other ecosystems, while dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN; NH₄ ⁺ and NO₃ ⁻) a secondary limiting nutrient, was elevated both in canal systems and seagrass meadows. SRP and NH₄ ⁺ concentrations decreased to low concentrations within approximately 1 km and 3 km from land, respectively. DIN and SRP accounted for their greatest contribution (up to 30%) of total N and P pools in canals, compared to dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and dissolved organic phosphorus (DOP) that dominated (up to 68%) the total N and P pools at the offshore bank reefs. Particulate N and P fractions were also elevated (up to 48%) in canals and nearshore seagrass meadows, indicating rapid biological uptake of DIN and SRP into organic particles. Chlorophylla and turbidity were also elevated in canal systems and seagrass meadows; chlorophylla was maximal during summer when maximum watershed nutrient input occurs, whereas turbidity was maximal during winter due to seasonally maximum wind conditions and sediment resuspension. DO was negatively correlated with NH₄ ⁺ and SRP; hypoxia (DO<2.5 mg l⁻¹) frequently occurred in nutrient-enriched canal systems and seagrass meadows, especially during the warm summer months. These findings correlate with recent (<5 years) observations of increasing algal blooms, seagrass epiphytization and die-off, and loss of coral cover on patch and bank reef ecosystems, suggesting that nearshore waters of the Florida Keys have entered a stage of critical eutrophication.

Gainesville, Florida July 2000

Dr. Alevizon, a former Reef Relief Scientific Advisor, provided this important paper which helped Reef Relief efforts to achieve a ban on fishfeeding in the State of Florida.

INTRODUCTION:

 This paper summarizes available information supporting the proposed rule of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), that the feeding of fishes and other marine wildlife by divers and snorkelers should be prohibited in State waters. This sensible measure would appear prudent if we are to properly protect Florida’s coastal marine wildlife and their habitats, as well as the ever-increasing number of people that interact with both. This information presented in this paper is intended to inform the ongoing deliberations of the FFWCC as it further considers regulation of the referred activity.

A. General Considerations: A Century of Interaction – What have We Learned About the Effects of Human Handouts on Wildlife?

The feeding of wild vertebrate animals by humans has been shown, through long experience in a wide variety of contexts and environments, to generally lead to three specific categories of problems. These became increasingly evident to wildlife managers throughout the U.S. during the latter half of the 20th century – surfacing again and again with virtually every form of “fed” vertebrate animal studied in this regard, including bears, deer, alligators, raccoons, skunks, and most recently marine mammals, particularly dolphins. These problems involve:

(1) Health problems for the animals fed: Feeding typically disrupts and alters normal foraging/feeding patterns, and may lead to a lessened ability to find/capture natural foods, and/or create a lasting reliance on people (Blount 1998; Wilkinson 1997). Also, animals are often fed items that they are not equipped to digest or process properly, including a wide variety of so-called “junk foods”. Finally, “fed” wild animals also tend to lose their natural wariness of humans and their devices, putting them at greatly increased risk from accidental strikes or entanglement with human devices (i.e., cars, boats, propellers, nets/fishing gear, etc.) and from poachers or hunters. The magnitude of such problems for terrestrial wildlife recently prompted a summary warning to visitors to Canada’s national parks: “A fed animal is a dead animal“.

(2) Disruption of natural ecological processes and biological communities: The continued feeding of wildlife in an area has environmental ramifications that extend well beyond direct threats to individual “fed” animals; fundamental attributes and processes of the ecosystems that support them are also being affected. The U.S. National Park Service (1975) stated the problem succinctly: “Unnatural conditions occur if supplemental food is provided to wild animals. This practice changes the natural distribution and behavior of fed species and the way in which their populations are regulated.”

(3) Increased risk to people from wildlife attack: It has been firmly established that wildlife feeding often places people at increased risk of animal attack. Nationwide, hundreds of people are injured every year in this way (Wilkinson 1997), and some are killed. Fed alligators have become an increasing threat to nearby humans in some parts of Florida, leading to a statewide ban on such activities. In the marine environment, dozens of bites from fed dolphins have been reported since dolphin-feeding cruises became popular in the Gulf of Mexico some years ago (NOAA 1992). Numerous injuries to both dolphins and humans led the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban dolphin-feeding cruises in 1991, backed by sufficient documentation to resist a legal challenge in Federal court several years later (NOAA 1992; NMFS 1994).

For these reasons, the feeding of wildlife – including fishes – has been banned in virtually all of our National Parks (including our underwater versions in Biscayne Bay, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands), as well as in many other protected areas throughout the U.S. and much of the world.

B. The Case for Regulating the Feeding of Marine Fishes

While our practical experience with the regular feeding (by humans) of populations of wild land animals goes back more than a century, widespread public use of scuba and snorkeling gear, and associated fish feeding by divers/snorkelers, are relatively new phenomena; thus there is considerably less of an “historical record” on the effects of feeding fishes than with terrestrial animals.

Nonetheless, available evidence strongly suggests that the very same problems that have persistently arisen from the regular hand-feeding of land animals are now being expressed in fed fishes as well, a finding that would come as no surprise to most professional biologists. After all, sharks and most other “fed” reef fishes are – like bears, deer, raccoons, and dolphins – opportunistic feeders, and therefore would reasonably be expected to respond to human handouts in much the same manner, and suffer much the same consequences, as their more well-studied terrestrial relatives

Some of the clearest and more readily documented evidence and information substantiating the notion that feeding wild fishes is an ill-advised activity is summarized below:

1. Harm to “fed” fishes: Experts on fish nutrition point out that many of the foods (hot dogs, baloney, cheese-in-a-can, bread, pretzels, potato chips, etc ) commonly fed to fishes by divers and snorkelers will predictably result in health problems for these animals, which do not naturally encounter such substances. As fish nutritionist Dr. David Ford (cited in Perrine 1989) pointed out, “Fish cannot handle hard fats..the fish packs the hard fats into the organs of its body with serious consequences to its health…excess carbohydrates…are not suitable for fish“. Even presumably “natural” foods sometimes prove harmful or lethal to marine animals. Testimony presented in Federal court attributed the deaths of human-fed wild dolphins to bacteria of a type frequently associated with spoiled fish (NMFS 1994). Increased vulnerability to underwater hunters and poachers presents a particularly serious threat for “fed” fishes – particularly to certain of the larger predatory species such as groupers and snappers – the very kinds of reef fishes most in need of protection today. The author personally knows of a number of locations where “tamed” (by feeding) reef fish have been killed in this way.

2. Ecological Disruption of Marine Communities: By changing feeding behavior and the types of foods taken and time and place of feeding in a variety of fish species, sustained fish feeding at a particular site alters natural food pathways and energy flow within the community – fundamental ecosystem processes – with unpredictable long-term consequences for the local marine ecosystem as a whole. In particular, shark feeding operations, which concentrate highly unnatural numbers of these large, fish-eating predators in a relatively small area (Burgess 1998), must ultimately unnaturally alter nearby fish populations, which must supply the abnormally large shark aggregations with the bulk of their food supply.

Changes in behavior as well as the local distribution/abundance patterns of fishes around regular feeding sites have been reported by a number of professional marine biologists, to wit:

• “Feeding of fish by divers is the most likely major cause of changes in the behavior of P. auratus and P. colias, which actively follow divers” (Cole 1994)
• “Ecological disruption …is of equal concern in the shallow water shark feeding areas, where feeding operations are altering the natural system…it is clear that the concentrations of sharks and bony fishes at feeding sites are unnatural” (Burgess 1998)
• “All over the world I have seen changes in fish habits, populations and health, largely due to human intruders feeding them unnatural foods” (Darling, Cited in Perrine 1989)
• “fish feeding has a negative effect on fish populations over a short period of time…the aggressive species of fish within the (community) tend to dominate over other fish species, which may result in the decline of non-aggressive species…it is strongly recommended that people discontinue fish feeding activities” (Hultquist 1997)

3. Increased Danger to People in the Sea: There are numerous documented reports of serious injuries to divers, snorkelers and nearby swimmers directly attributable to fish feeding activities. Particularly troubling today, because of the increasing number of amateurs trying fish-feeding for themselves, are the increasing number of documented cases in which novices lost parts of hands and suffered other serious wounds while attempting to emulate the “skills” of seasoned divemasters. Common injuries to those attempting to feed fish, or visiting areas where feeding is regularly practiced, include severe lacerations of faces, hands, arms and torsos, and loss of fingers (Perrine 1989). The fishes involved in the most serious incidents are typically sharks, morays, groupers, and barracuda.

Because it has been repeatedly asserted, in the context of the current FFWCC proceedings, that such records are virtually non-existent, it is useful here to cite at least a few of the numerous examples that have been reported:

• “a tourist diving at a feeding site on a non-feeding day was bitten on the head by a charcharhinid shark” (Burgess 1998)
• “In 1987…a diver…no longer carrying any fish…was watching…as a spotted moray was fed. Another (spotted moray) swam over her shoulder from behind and bit her face twice, severely ripping her lips and requiring reconstructive surgery”. (Perrine 1989)
• “Feeding…has changed the (fishes) behavior. Often the cod become agitated during feeding, bumping divers and fighting each other for food scraps. It was especially at that time that divers had their hands bitten” (Quinn and Kojis 1990).
• “An autopsy on the body in Cairns found a bump on his head and small punctures in his skin…the coroner concluded that he was drowned by a (potato) cod…it was hypothesized that while snorkeling the cod grabbed him and held him under long enough to drown” (Quinn and Kojis 1990).
• “I have been bitten severely on the ear by a grouper who expected a handout, and I know of many other such incidents” (Darling, cited in Perrine 1989)

Shark-feeding operations are particularly worrisome in this regard, not only for nearby divers but for virtually anyone in the ocean within the general vicinity of the feeding site, including swimmers at nearby beaches. This is because in contrast to most reef fishes, sharks have a very large “home range” and normally cover far greater distances in a daily search for food. These dangers are only slowly becoming apparent, despite warnings from the experts.

Here are a few documented responses of some well-recognized shark experts who see shark-feeding dives as presenting increased danger to people engaged in such activities, or other humans using nearby swimming or surfing areas:

• A few years ago members of the American Elasmobranch Society – unquestionably the most prestigious body of shark experts in North America – were asked, “In regard to shark diving operations which involve regular baiting, is there a cause for concern (re; shark attack) if such…operations are conducted relatively close to bathing or surfing beaches?” More than 90% of those responding believed that the danger was real, at least under the “right” circumstances.
• Dr. George Burgess, a shark expert who maintains the University of Florida’s shark attack file – one of the most comprehensive such resources in the world – recently voiced grave concerns for the safety of those participating in shark-feeding dives. Says Burgess, ” shark attack rate is profoundly influenced by the concentrations of sharks and humans occupying the water at the same time. Increases in either generally result in an increased probability of an attack” (Burgess 1998). Also, according to Dr. Burgess, the whole practice is inherently unsound from a diver-safety perspective, and numerous attacks have already occurred in association with these operations – mainly to shark handlers but in at least several cases to tourists (ENN 1998).
• “These sharks now expect and associate divers with food, approaching them with no fear and in unexpected patterns. I firmly believe that this deliberate feeding of sharks for recreational observation will only increase the incidence of shark attacks on divers in areas where it is practiced.” (Gouin, cited in Perrine 1989)
• it is vital that such initiatives (referring to regulation of shark diving activities) are extended to other countries as a matter of urgency, and are strictly enforced” (Fowler 1998)

4. Decreased enjoyment of the resource by other divers: In addition to safety concerns, a major objection to fish feeding noted by many experienced divers is that this activity, when continued in an area for some time, compromises the quality of the sport diving experience for others visiting the area.

Divers frequently report noting distinct changes in the behaviors of many reef fishes, including the most common problem in which normally peaceful – even shy and reclusive species – rush out of hiding as divers enter the water, aggressively approaching them in search of a handout. Thus, visitors to popular diving areas throughout the world are increasingly being denied that which they came to see – marine life behavior and environments in any semblance of a natural state.

Annoying swarms of “fed” yellowtail snapper, chubs and sergeant majors have now become commonplace “pests” on many of the most popular reefs in the Florida Keys and other popular dive destinations, leading to painful bites and in some cases minor injuries to earlobes;

	"the fish soon learned that they had to attack any
	diver with bread on sight, or they would miss out.
	Sergent majors became known as 'Cayman piranhas' and
	divers began referring to "'attack yellowtails' which
	swarmed them, biting, blocking faceplates and making
	underwater photography next to impossible"
	(Perrine 1989).

Minor injury and “nuisance” incidents generally go unreported, but appear to be far more common in recent years, corresponding to an increase in feeding activities. At the February meeting of the FFWCC, several Commissioners related their own personal negative encounters with aggressive reef fishes conditioned by feeding. The author of this paper, a professional marine ecologist specializing in the study of Caribbean reef fish communities, has never encountered this type of fish behavior in almost 30 years of research diving at a wide variety of remote Caribbean reefs; it is only where fish feeding is commonly engaged that such unnatural behaviors are manifested.

The author recently (this summer) personally witnessed such altered and annoying behavior at a popular dive site in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. While waiting at the surface to board our dive boat, the author’s dive buddy was suddenly and without warning rushed and bitten on the finger by one of the hundreds of “beggars” swarming around a particular mooring buoy, where it was obvious from the unnatural concentration of reef fishes near the surface, and from their atypically aggressive behaviors, that the fish were accustomed to being regularly fed. The attack was initiated when the diver (a professional underwater photographer) simply turned his hand upright with thumb to forefinger to check his dive watch – a pose closely resembling the pro-offering of food. He was fortunate that it was one of the chubs – rather than the barracuda in their midst – that decided to attack. Another diver, in a similar situation at a nearby dive site in the Keys years earlier, had not been so lucky:

	"When she used her index finger to point out a
	feature on the reef to a group of divers, a barracuda
	that had become accustomed to taking bait from divers'
	hands zipped in and neatly sliced the finger open"
	(Perrine 1989)

C. Some Notable Precedents for the Prohibition/Regulation of Diver Feeding of Marine Fishes

Wild fish feeding remains for the most part an entirely unregulated activity in most U.S. coastal waters. However, there are some notable examples of situations in which such activity is now prohibited or strictly regulated:

• Based upon scientific findings (Hawaii DLNR 1993) as well as public opinion, the State of Hawaii has already passed legislation banning the feeding of reef fishes at some locations, and dialog continues that may eventually lead to extending that ban to other areas
• The U.S. National Park Service maintains a total ban on feeding of fishes in all of its marine parks, including those in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Biscayne Bay
• The Great Barrier Reef Authority (Australia) presently strictly regulates fish feeding on the GBR through a strict permitting system, involving tight restrictions on number of permits issued and qualification/training of permittees, location of feeding sites, frequency of feeding, types of foods allowed, and mandatory written and oral warnings (of the dangers) to “customers”. The GBRA has specifically reserved the right to entirely prohibit feeding in the future.

CONCLUSIONS:

This paper has presented evidence and information in support of the FFWCC’s February 2000 decision to prohibit the underwater feeding of sharks and other marine wildlife in Florida waters. The decision appears to be the most prudent course of action, and is backed by a preponderance of scientific evidence, expert opinion of leading state and national marine conservation groups, a century of cumulative experience of wildlife managers dealing with the referred activity in similar contexts, and precedents established by other regulatory agencies at home and abroad. The FFWCC would be wise to proactively regulate this inherently ill-advised activity in the interest of marine conservation and public safety before the practice reaps more costly human and environmental losses.

For more info on this topic, go to: http://www.cdnn.info/news/editorial/o020112a.html