Public Meeting to Discuss Proposed Marine Sanctuary in Riviera Beach(BHB)

[danvolker]

I think the meeting went well. The biggest concerns we have as of now:
1. the Rybovitch Marina dredge project....I don't think this is as bad as the Riviera beach contingent painted it--I don't think it would destroy our BHB marine life, but I DO think it would really shut the vis down significantly a lot of the time, and obviosly I don't want that... I spoke with Skip from force E on this after the meeting last night, and also a gentleman that owns or controls the present dredging operation in the inlet....according to him, the effects for the marina would be quite similar to the effects of the normal inlet dredging. ***Note....I need to speak to this guy again about how hard it would be to have the dredge turned off for a few hours around high tide, particularly in weekends when so much diving is going on--this would drastically improve vis, and we may get the Toursit Development Council to help us with this.

2.) Sailboaters discussed the need to occaisionally go through the inner area to the east of the wall at the west end of our diving area....surprisingly, the ceiling height is better for the really tall ( 63 to 65 ft high masted sailboats) if you go inside here.....this is a rare occurence, only when one of a small number of really big sailboats has to go through near high tide....for these guys, we may need them to sound an underwater boat horn when they want to move through the passage--divers would need to know ( we would need signs posted) that the horn blaring underwater means get out of the way!!!....this is legally a navigation channel, so the actual law will protect their right over ours--meaning we NEED to be gracious and work with them, rather than fight them ( and potentially lose access to the entire west part of the BHB area ( the 18 foot deep area). They are being polite about this, and their past behavior is often waiting many hours for dives to be out of the passageway.
3.) A small number of indivduals tried to make a case that this is an entirely man made area, and as such, not deserving of a protected status--so collection should be allowed. My return point was that this is a marine estuary, a rich nursery ground for juvenile species, and there are FEW of these along the coastline--as these nursery grounds are critical in rebuilding fish stocks, it would be foolish to allow collecting and mass removal from a nursery area--the collection needs to be out on the reefs in a non-nursery setting.
4.) some polution issues were addressed regarding non-organic polutants...these are real issues...as a group, we should work to attempt to reduce the various street run-off and agri-runoff threats---BUT, we need to make it well understood that DURRING HIGH TIDE the BHB area has nice clean gulf Stream water in it--for us to be swimming in..remember, for this to get the protection we want, it needs to be seen as viable and safe for tourists--and for us--it can't be seen as a lost cause to to dangerous chemical pollution ( as you could ascribe to it sometimes during low tide).

 

[jet126]

2/10/2011 Meeting for Proposed Marine Sanctuary at Phil Foster Park/Blue Heron Bridge

The room was set with 50 chairs. By 5:45pm it was full with an additional +/- 50 standing. I estimate 75 outside for a total attendance of close to 200.

Eric Call, WPB Director of Parks & Recreation, opened the meeting and introduced nine other city officials also in attendance.

The purpose of the meeting was to gather information and input for a proposed designated marine sanctuary at Phil Foster Park (PFP), also referred to as a “no take zone.” State statute #379 states that the FWC is the regulatory agency for the taking of fish. Local governments cannot enforce this. Years ago a request was made and denied regarding this issue. The goal tonight was to determine if there is enough public interest to move the proposal forward to FWC.

Individuals were invited to fill out comment cards indicating if they also wished to speak. Speakers were given two minutes and called to the microphone in the order the cards were received. There was no opportunity for discussion or debate. The entire proceedings were recorded.

Mr. Call quoted Scuba Diving magazine naming Blue Heron Bridge (BHB) “one of the seven most important inshore dive sites in the world.” A list of species was available as a handout.

Speaker #1 – Representative from the MIASF (Marine Industries Association of South Florida)
What is the scientific proof that the taking of tropical fish is a problem?
The same “dive group” proposing the sanctuary is also proposing that 15 miles of WPB reef be closed to fishing.
How will this impact public infrastructure, state lands, growth on pilings, boat ramps and private docks within the proposed area?
Will this close the fishing bridge?
He concluded by saying “more questions have not been answered than have.”

Speaker #2
Concerned that some of the area will obstruct the boat channel; is encroaching on boaters.

Speaker #3
In support of the sanctuary. Sited another source calling BHB one of the Top Ten Tropical dive sites in the Western Atlantic.
What’s going to happen to the mooring field? Both mooring and anchor policy must be restricted.
What about the fishing bridge?
What about lion fish?
The scope of the protected area needs to be expanded and/or clarified. “Tropical Fish” does not include other species such as mollusks or crustaceans.
Who will be in charge? FWC? County? Inland Waterway?

Speaker #4
When the new bridge was constructed it was given 65 ft. of clearance at high tide. This opening has widespread use for boaters as there are not many fixed bridges of this height on the intracoastal. After construction was complete, tall boats were getting damaged. Too late to correct, it was found that there is 63 ft. of clearance. There is a very narrow area on the east side of the channel that provides an additional 18” of clearance. This area is within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Recommends the passageway not be included in the protected area so that tall boats can get through.

Speaker #5
Not only is BHB an important dive site for photographers, it has also provided important research and species documentation to the University of Florida. It should be designated a sanctuary.

Speaker #6
A professor from Florida Atlantic University who has discovered five new animals unique to this area. The area is important for continued research; should be conducted in a sustainable way. Believes far more damage was done with the construction of Peanut Island – an entire ecosystem was wiped out.

Speaker #7
Has been working at PFP as a lifeguard for 17 years.
Boaters are not creating pollution.
There are several large corporate boatyards in the inlet that are contributing far more damage (pollutants) than the taking of tropicals.

Speaker #8
President of the West Palm Beach Fishing Club speaking on behalf of all anglers.
PFP is a historical fishing spot with free public access. Concerns regarding fishing need to be addressed. Better choice of words: “Limit specific activities” such as tropical fish collection would be more acceptable to all user groups.

Speaker #9
Opposed to sanctuary.
PFP is not a “natural” area – everything is man-made.
People have been collecting tropicals for over 50 years with no ill effects.
You can only dive for two hours a day so it’s not a big dive site.
Would rather see the funding go to our national parks.
Is writing a book on shell collecting on Peanut Island and does not work her work jeopardized.

Speaker #10
From Reef Rescue
We are losing our natural resources rapidly. It is a constant battle to protect what we have left.

Speaker #11
A diver who came all the way down from Orlando. Has been diving BHB for years. Species are not seen as often as they used to. Would like to see the area preserved for children and grandchildren.

Speaker #12
Skip from Force E talked about the economic impact of BHB as a dive site for OW students. There are 13 commercial dive boats in the area that depend on groups from all over the S.E. US who come down to get certified. BHB is the “relief valve” dive site if boats get blown out. Thousands of dollars are poured into Palm Beach Cty every spring and summer when hotels are generally empty of tourists. To lose that would be a shame.

Speaker #13
As BHB has become more famous, the collecting issue has more potential pressure. The area is an estuary with many juveniles. No collecting should ever be done in a juvenile habitat.
Divers and anglers should learn to work together.

Speaker #14
The channel height was mismarked. Tall boats hit the bridge and need the small channel to the east for the additional 18” of clearance.

Speaker #15
Needs the 18” of clearance.

Speaker #16
The water is already polluted from the corporate boatyards in the inlet. Rybovich is planning to build a new boat yard for mega yachts, which would require significant dredging of the channel. It will cause so much pollution that any sanctuary discussion now is a waste of time. We need to be concerned with what is going across the bridge in Riviera Beach.

Speaker #17
A local life-long Riviera Beach resident. “Let us be part of this.”

Speaker #18
“There is a war going on across the channel concerning Rybovich and the mega boats. The city is opposed to this as it will require dredging and destroy everything.”

Speaker #19
The locals are opposed to further restrictions on fishing. It is already unfair that boats are free to come & go any time of the day or night but PFP is only open to anglers sun up to sun down. Husband got a ticket for “not watching the time.” Let’s figure out a way to coexist. And we need a bigger meeting space next time!

Speaker #20
Does not want to take away any of the current activities. Concerned in making sure that everything is taken into consideration: not just public opinion but city services such as police and rescue, FDOT and other government agencies.

Mr. Call thanked everyone for coming. The meeting officially adjourned at 6:45pm.



I take full responsibility for any errors or omissions and welcome relevant corrections. I am not a professional secretary or journalist and any mistakes are unintentional. I am reporting this as an avid BHB diver who thought fellow trolls and troll-wannabes would be interested in what was said. I have tried to be as impartial and objective as possible in my recap. All-in-all my impression was that there was a fair representation of all interested groups (pro and con): divers, boaters, anglers and residents of Riviera Beach.

The appropriate venue for your thoughts or rebuttal is the West Palm Beach (WPB) park district website comment line which will be open for another week:

pbcparks@pbcgov.org

I have attached a pdf file of the species list handout.
View attachment 20110211104734_BHB SPECIES LIST_-_0000003C.PDF

Respectfully submitted,
jet

 

[Shcubasteve]

... State statute #379 states that the FWC is the regulatory agency for the taking of fish. Local governments cannot enforce this. Years ago a request was made and denied regarding this issue. ...

Local gov't cannot enforce their own rules on collecting??!?! Sounds like the current no-take zone is a sham! Correct me if I am wrong... (of course I'm playing devil's advocate, but seriously)

 

[sportxlh]

jet126: I was also at the meeting: your post is a pretty good summary; though you failed to mention that the last speaker seemed to have some sort of axe to grind regarding City vs. County politics. A bunch of attendees started to walk out at that point.

 

[Scubarus66]

jet126: I was also at the meeting: your post is a pretty good summary; though you failed to mention that the last speaker seemed to have some sort of axe to grind regarding City vs. County politics. A bunch of attendees started to walk out at that point.

Yep. Mr. Call wasn't to pleased either....

 

[jet126]

Had there been opportunity for discussion or debate I think we would have seen tempers fly. As it was everyone was well-behaved, for the most part (with one exception). As Mr Call said at the start - the purpose of the meeting was to gauge public interest in moving forward. A lot needs to happen before anything is official.

That is why I tried to recap as close to verbatim as I could. Of course there were things said that left me stunned. I don't know if it was just me but I felt a definite "them vs. us" when it came to the divers.

 

[danvolker]

Had there been opportunity for discussion or debate I think we would have seen tempers fly. As it was everyone was well-behaved, for the most part (with one exception). As Mr Call said at the start - the purpose of the meeting was to gauge public interest in moving forward. A lot needs to happen before anything is official.

That is why I tried to recap as close to verbatim as I could. Of course there were things said that left me stunned. I don't know if it was just me but I felt a definite "them vs. us" when it came to the divers.

I know what you mean...but I think it was something else......I think the idea that "divers" are pushing for a "sancturay" sent a message to fisherman and boaters and to others that we did not intend.....I think they suddenly became afraid that our "goal" or the ultimate result of a successful action on out part, would be the elimination of fishing at the bridge, and for the boaters, it would mean major navigational problems that could be a nightmare for some.

I think it is imporatant that we make very clear we are NOT desiring to restrict fishing at the park---for one thing, the species we are concerned with in this juvenile nursery, the tropicals and very rare marine life, are NOT effected by fishing--they are not hooked ( maybe one accident in 6 months--certainly no amount of accidental catch volume to justify removing the fisherman).
As a group, we need to realize this is Riviera Beach..this is "their" area....the locals have been fishing the bridge for many generations, and if we attempt to hurt this enjoyment and lifestyle, we will create a horrific battle in which even if we won, we would lose in the long run.

The reality is that we need the local fisherman, and the local families as allies. This is crucial.

We need the park to be a friendly family place, and one where the criminal element does not feel welcome in ( and are immediately reported on if they show up). We need the fisherman for this, especially as the County Sherifs are no longer patrolling the park, and the entire job is now left to the Riviera Beach police force. These guys are spread too thin, and we will not have the constant presence of past years--so we need a "Neighborhood Watch" kind of Plan B. Again, we desparately need the fisherman to see us as part of their family.

As to the boaters, they need to know we are not trying to restrict or damage their activities. Rather than allow any coloring of the issue toward "more" regulation or more care on the part of boaters to worry about dive flags and where divers are near the channels...we need to let them know we want to restrict divers to this zone, and if anything, remove the concern about flags being 20 feet from the channel, and boats legally in the channel actually breaking the law regarding proximity to divers.....Personally, I would rather have a line run along the bottom ( rope/markers/visible line) which is the outer boundary of where we can be...And, then, divers DO NOT need a flag to be inside the diver area....any boat "needing" to go inside this diver area, would have to assume they have divers in the area--like a swimming area...and go very slow, and try to avoid endangering divers....pretty much, this is an anchoring issue only......with the exception of the final boating issue:

The high mast sailboats needing to cross under the bridge EAST of the main channel boats normally cross in---and then just east of the wall which is east of our swim through adjacent to the channel. This very rarely happens, there are not many of these very big high mast sailboats.....they have a LEGAL RIGHT which supercedes any right we might think we have to be in this area ( one of the best areas in the whole BHB park. We need to be EXTREMELY ACCOMODATING to these guys....these sailboaters are so careful, often they wait HOURS for us to get out of the channel, so that they can cross under...
I think we need to begin a sounding of an underwater horn to alert divers that a big sailboat is about to cross--and we need to get out of the crossing area immediately--which means dragging the clueless with us I think just putting a standard boat horn to the hull of a big sailboat would make an underwater shrieking noise we would hear easily...we should test a few related ideas on this, and help these guys PROACTIVELY.... We need allies, not enemies.

 

[jimw]

Thanks a lot jet and Dan!! We DO need friends among the other users of the park. Divide and conquer is a proven method of winning

 

[Scubarus66]

Blue Heron Boulevard bridge: Scuba divers want the area around the Blue Heron Boulevard bridge to be designated a marine sanctuary - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I know what you mean...but I think it was something else......I think the idea that "divers" are pushing for a "sancturay" sent a message to fisherman and boaters and to others that we did not intend.....I think they suddenly became afraid that our "goal" or the ultimate result of a successful action on out part, would be the elimination of fishing at the bridge, and for the boaters, it would mean major navigational problems that could be a nightmare for some.

I think it is imporatant that we make very clear we are NOT desiring to restrict fishing at the park---for one thing, the species we are concerned with in this juvenile nursery, the tropicals and very rare marine life, are NOT effected by fishing--they are not hooked ( maybe one accident in 6 months--certainly no amount of accidental catch volume to justify removing the fisherman).
As a group, we need to realize this is Riviera Beach..this is "their" area....the locals have been fishing the bridge for many generations, and if we attempt to hurt this enjoyment and lifestyle, we will create a horrific battle in which even if we won, we would lose in the long run.

The reality is that we need the local fisherman, and the local families as allies. This is crucial.

We need the park to be a friendly family place, and one where the criminal element does not feel welcome in ( and are immediately reported on if they show up). We need the fisherman for this, especially as the County Sherifs are no longer patrolling the park, and the entire job is now left to the Riviera Beach police force. These guys are spread too thin, and we will not have the constant presence of past years--so we need a "Neighborhood Watch" kind of Plan B. Again, we desparately need the fisherman to see us as part of their family.

As to the boaters, they need to know we are not trying to restrict or damage their activities. Rather than allow any coloring of the issue toward "more" regulation or more care on the part of boaters to worry about dive flags and where divers are near the channels...we need to let them know we want to restrict divers to this zone, and if anything, remove the concern about flags being 20 feet from the channel, and boats legally in the channel actually breaking the law regarding proximity to divers.....Personally, I would rather have a line run along the bottom ( rope/markers/visible line) which is the outer boundary of where we can be...And, then, divers DO NOT need a flag to be inside the diver area....any boat "needing" to go inside this diver area, would have to assume they have divers in the area--like a swimming area...and go very slow, and try to avoid endangering divers....pretty much, this is an anchoring issue only......with the exception of the final boating issue:

The high mast sailboats needing to cross under the bridge EAST of the main channel boats normally cross in---and then just east of the wall which is east of our swim through adjacent to the channel. This very rarely happens, there are not many of these very big high mast sailboats.....they have a LEGAL RIGHT which supercedes any right we might think we have to be in this area ( one of the best areas in the whole BHB park. We need to be EXTREMELY ACCOMODATING to these guys....these sailboaters are so careful, often they wait HOURS for us to get out of the channel, so that they can cross under...
I think we need to begin a sounding of an underwater horn to alert divers that a big sailboat is about to cross--and we need to get out of the crossing area immediately--which means dragging the clueless with us I think just putting a standard boat horn to the hull of a big sailboat would make an underwater shrieking noise we would hear easily...we should test a few related ideas on this, and help these guys PROACTIVELY.... We need allies, not enemies.

I've used the area as a source for recreational activity for years. My recreation includes taking and collect tropical marine organisms. However, if this area is such a pristine and unique habitat that has unmatched diversity, then I am willing to sacrifice my chosen recreational activity. I hope other divers are willing to as well.

I think there are some very serious issues with taking a navigable channel and turning it into a "dive park", or some other type of preserve. I had no idea sailboats need to drive right through that area, thank goodness it is a rare occurance, I have never seen it.

Dan V's idea of an underwater horn that sailboats would need to carry and deploy in only one place in the world: (the BHB) is utterly ridiculous. What authority would the local government call upon to make this new law?

Logic would dictate that if this is a designated, navigable channel, then there is no way that they can put dive bouys up in this area. Designating this specific area as a santuary, is serving to promote diving within the navigable waterway. As a county tax payer, I am very concerned about the potential for an increase in the County's liability for accidents that might occur in this specific area. What next, a county play ground in the median of I-95? The boundary area obviously needs to be adjusted to accomodate the need to maintance navigable waterways.

The boundary of the dive area really needs to be reduced in order to avoid putting unsuspecting divers into harms way with a large, deep draft sailboat plowing right through the designated "dive area". If they are going to eliminate MY recreational activity of (collecting recreational quantities of marine life), then I see no problem with taking away other divers ability to dive in the area. Clearly, an ordinance should be passed that precludes diving in this alternate channel.

I see other issues with the proximity to the designated fishing pier. The dive area should be further reduced to preclude divers from coming within 25 or 50 feet of the designated fishing pier. To make a designated diving santuary in the same footprint as a designated hook and line fishing pier is silly. I think it will make a personal injury attorney very happy when a diver is hooked badly by a fisherman (especially when both individuals are engaging in perfectly lawful (and County-approved activities in "the park"). I would definitely support a no-dive zone, a safety buffer around the fishing pier in order to formally recognize that intense utilization of the same area by incompatible user groups is the only way to protect the novice divers and our county from excessive liability. We don't have a County-sponsored easter egg hunt in the same area where hunting of small game is promoted, do we? Clearly, intense, high density recreational diving and hook and line fishing is not compatible at the exact same time and place. Drawing the designated santuary and dive zone under a fishing pier makes no sense at all.

I strongly suspect that this plan of action will further legitamize this dive site, drawing many more divers to the park and thus increase impact to the very special, unique eco-system that exists ONLY under the BHB. I think that if "the santuary" is established, the County should spend some money to do some studies to document what kind of effects all the many new, inexperinced divers will be having on the benthos.

Possibly as the popularity grows, it will only be a few more years until the County needs to issue "permits" for day diving like they do for night diving. This would serve to ensure that all divers have been educated about the unique rules of this area and also prevent too many uniformed, unpermitted divers from kicking up the bottom and causing excessive impact. If we really want to protect this unique jewel, we must be willing to sacrifice some of our recreational activities.

Of course a very small fee would need to be charged to issue so many "permits" to so many divers. I am sure the County could automate the system and do it on line, but we must acknowledge that this is a "nursery area" and excessive utilization by dive training companies will be detrimental. They can always do these activities on the miles of offshore reefs, right?