WiLD Blog

We are continuously seeing global warming becoming a more pressing issue and sea levels are rising which is believed by many to be in direct correlation with global warming. Recent reports from the U.S. government are warning planners that they should be rethinking threatened roads, rail lines, airports and other infrastructure along the U.S. coasts.
The greatest and most immediate impact of the increased heat, sea levels and precipitation rates is coastal flooding. The EPA has done similar studies that also found natural features such as beaches, wetlands and freshwater supplies also being at risk of destruction.
The new reports note that coastal areas are “thickly populated, economically important and gaining people and investment by the day, even as scientific knowledge of the risks they face increases.” The use of such knowledge by policy makers and planners is clearly insufficient. Planners need to now begin to come up with plans that will reinforce, move or replace on safer ground. “We need to think about it now,” said Dr. Schwartz, a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

The multiagency reports, draft assessments are intended to help policy makers start thinking and planning now. The report offers three different estimates for sea level rise by 2100: about 16 inches a century, a rate it said had already been exceeded about two feet.
As a first step for policy makers, the report said that transportation officials need to realize that climate patterns that prevailed in the past “may no longer be reliable guide for future plans.” Instead they should “incorporate climate change into their plans for capital improvements, maintenance schedules, emergency preparedness and so on.”

Despite this report being developed by the U.S. government, it still provides additional evidence as to why further coastal development throughout the Baja California Peninsula needs to be prevented or at least regulated. Our coastal region and ecosystem is completely connected and will face similar if not the same repercussions if major coastal flooding was to occur. The majority of growth and infrastructure throughout Baja’s coastal regions is very unplanned and developers are able to avoid regulation building standards that they would face in the U.S. If the U.S. government is suggesting the reinforcement or even the relocation of infrastructure that was professionally and comprehensively planned, what is the fate of present and future coastal development throughout the B.C. Peninsula?

Cory Keen

If you are interested in sustainable development and low-impact tourism than Cancun is the Godzilla of Mega-Tourism. A relic of the nuclear age causing havoc and terror on one of the world’s most ecologically signficant coastal and marine ecosystems.

Of course for the officials with Mexico’s Ministry of Tourism Cancun is the Sun God that should be replicated throughout Mexico’s coastline. These officials know better, but for some reason they believe they must convince investors that they too believe in the God of Cancun.

That is why when I read articles about their proclomations about the “next Cancun” to be built on a virgin stretch of coastline on the

Sea of Cortez I get concerned. Here is a summation of new plans for the area between San Luis Gonzaga and Bahia de los Angeles in Baja California,

TIJUANA – The Mexican tourism agency behind the development of major
resorts such as Cancun and Los Cabos is now setting its sights on the
sparsely populated Gulf of California region for its next mega-project.

Miguel Gómez Montt, director general of Fonatur, said in an interview
yesterday that his agency is studying 10 areas on the gulf, hoping to
“choose one and promote it.”

“We need to build three Cancuns, and we are analyzing where we could do
so, and one of them could be in this zone,” said Gómez Montt, who
discussed his agency’s upcoming project during an investment summit
promoting the Gulf of California.

In Baja California, Fonatur is focusing on the area between Bahia San
Luis Gonzaga and Bahia de los Angeles on the states’ east coast. The
region is known for its stark beauty and broad vistas of the Gulf of
California, also called the Sea of Cortez.

The sparsely populated gulf is prized by environmentalists and
scientists for its rich marine life and many endemic species. In 2005,
244 islands in the gulf were designated a United Nations World Heritage
site. Earlier this year, President Felipe Calderon’s administration
designated the marine region off Bahia de los Angeles as a Biosphere
Reserve.

Fonatur has for years been trying to find land for a marina in Bahia de
los Angeles. Gómez Montt said the Baja California government has given
Fonatur a piece of land in the town and that his agency hopes to build
its facility there next year.

It is unfortunate that FONATUR has not learned from its mistakes at Santa Rosalillita (the agency knows that failed marina is a disaster). Serge

 The crazy levels of ocean pollution pouring into the ocean south of the U.S.-Mexico border is no longer the dirty secret it used to  be. Check out what  San Diego Councilmember Ben Hueso wrote today in the VoiceofSandiego.org:

On a recent kayak trip, I traveled south from Imperial Beach to Rosarito, and on my way south I passed the well-known community of San Antonio del Mar, which is located about five miles south of the border.

As I kayaked into the vicinity of San Antonio del Mar, I came across what I consider the most severe example of environmental degradation I have ever witnessed. I was astounded to see a large area of brown water with an unusually large presence of marine birds and dolphins obviously feeding on something. I soon realized that I was paddling through a brown mixture of slimy untreated sewage. After kayaking for a few more minutes, I was further shocked by the concentration of the sewage and the vast span of coastline it covered. I was also surprised that there was not a containment crew trying to clean up the sewage.

When I returned to the site three days later, I was greatly disturbed to see that nothing had changed. All the while, I saw bathers swimming in the water, surfers surfing nearby and, of most concern, fishermen pulling fish out of the surrounding waters. There were no warning signs to inform the beachgoers or fishermen of what was obviously a public health hazard.

I have known for years that Tijuana has been unable to successfully process its sewage for decades and that the result has been frequent discharges into the Tijuana River Valley. Never did I imagine, however, that the problem occurred daily and the outflow drained directly into waters that were regularly frequented by the general public.

As I kayaked, I fought a very strong northerly current that is one of the strongest I have ever experienced in my years of kayaking along the coast. This uniquely strong current brings millions of gallons of this sewage into Playas de Tijuana, Imperial Beach, Silverstrand State Beach, and Coronado, which are frequented by millions of visitors and residents annually.

Sewage plume, San Antonio del Mar he sewage plume can clearly be seen flowing north in an aerial view on Google Earth maps.

With the recent election of Tijuana’s new mayor, Jorge Ramos, and Baja California’s new governor, José Guadalupe Osuna Milln, an opportunity now exists to unite both San Diego and Mexico’s elected officials. Priority needs to be placed on preventing this type of sewage from entering our coastal waters. The hundreds of millions we propose to invest in improving water quality in San Diego by improving our creeks and watersheds and reducing discharge in our bays and beaches is but a mere drop in the bucket in comparison to correcting this immense problem that we seem helpless to address through our legal processes.

If anything, the Mexican government should acknowledge the problem as beyond their immediate control and post signage preventing swimming or fishing within a five mile radius of the outflow zone. Who knows how many people and animals have been affected by the contaminated water and seafood? It’s not too late to begin to correct this problem.

Thanks Ben for calling for action to solve this problem. Those of us who are immersed in this issue and impacted by it are glad that elected officials are taking notice of this terrible problem. Serge

In Monterey and the central California coast, jumbo squid are invading. Known as the Humboldt squid, it can grow up to 7 feet long and weight up to 100 pounds. They are voracious predators that eat krill, sardines, birds, rockfish, and other Humboldt squid. They have been known to attack fishermen and divers as well too.

Yet, the giant squid isn’t the scariest part of this invasion.

These squid are normally found off the warm waters of Baja California and Chile. They first invaded during the 1997 El Nino event and disappeared soon afterwards. They returned during the 2002 El Nino and it seems as if the squid are here to stay, since young jumbo squid have been turning up, possibly because the squid have started reproducing in the area.

Humboldt squid found in Santa Cruz (Photo: New York Times)

Some scientists theorize that overfishing has eliminated the predators and competitors of the giant squid, thus allowing them to expand their range up the California coast.

By simply removing one species, ecological communities can be radically changed. Coral reefs have been devastated by outbreaks of crown of thorns sea stars. These outbreaks are thought to be due to overfishing. Since the predators of the larva were eliminated, the population of the starfish has been steadily increasing since the 1970’s.

Others believe that a combination of the squid’s unusual physiology along with global warming has given the squid some unique opportunities. Studies in Baja California have shown that the squid can tolerate high shifts in temperature, as well as hunt in low oxygen zones where small fish hide. This zone extends up and down the coast of the Pacific coastline; however, global warming might be increasing its spread.

Not only will global warming expand the ranges of some species but it will reduce the ranges of others. Animals, such as the polar bear are having more and more difficulty finding suitable habitat. There is an effort to declare the polar bear an endangered species.

Invasions such as these could become more common as time passes, simply because humans are doing a lot to changing both the environment and also the different players within an ecological community. Our impact on the environment has untold consequences whether we intended to cause them or not.

-Calvin Lee

Gray whales are being threatened again. Their yearly 12,500-mile migration brings them up and down the coast of North America, as they feed in the waters by Vancouver and Seattle during the summer and migrate down to breed in Baja California during the winter months. Scientists have discovered that the grey whales are arriving in their calving grounds thin and exhausted.

Scientists believe this is due to a lack of food for the whales when they are in their traditional feeding grounds. Consequently they are forced to look for food when they should be breeding.

The source of the problem is unknown but the consequences could be devastating. The gray whale is symbolic of Mexico’s natural heritage as Baja California is home to the world’s last undeveloped calving ground, San Ignacio lagoon. This problem has not only consequences for the future of the gray whale species but for the economic wellbeing of the tourism industry in both Baja and California.

Lack of food in their traditional feeding grounds is a serious threat to the survival of gray whales.

To WiLDCOAST, the grey whale has a special place in the organization. In our offices, on the walls are various articles relating the struggles and successes the grey whales have been through. WiLDCOAST has been heavily involved in the preservation of the coastal environment and protecting species such as the grey whale. The Baja California coast and lagoons are unique in being the last undeveloped calving sites of the gray whale. In addition the presence of the gray whale brings in tourists willing to spend money to see the whales. Not only do people enjoy whale watching in Baja California, but also in California, whale-watching tours are very popular during the winter months.

But economics are just a small part of the immense value these whales have to human beings. These whales are economically valuable to us for a deeper, intangible reason. It is impossible to put economic value on the sense of excitement and wonder when people spot these whales and the memories and impact they have on us. The beauty and excitement these whales bring to our lives reminds us that we are simply one part of the natural world, and that we also share the same world. Our actions can have consequences for these amazing animals that have been repeating their yearly migrations before humans even arrived on this continent. That is why it’s crucial to support conservation, ecotourism and conservation efforts to protect these whales.

-Calvin Lee

In the June 23rd issue of The Economist an article was published titled “Having it both ways.” This editorial addresses the direction of Ecuador’s green policies concerning oil reserves in the Yasuni National Park. The park is a part of the Amazon rainforest, a designated UNESCO Biosphere Region, and today holds ¼ of Ecuador’s total known oil reserves. Ecuador’s current president, Rafael Correa, has committed himself to supporting environmentally conscious policies and has recently proposed a plan that is bound to challenge and conflict the minds of environmentalist as well as social workers worldwide.

President Correa announced publicly that if Ecuador is compensated the amount of $350 million per year he will keep the Yasuni oil untapped. Also stated in the article is the fact that if Ecuador decides to exploit this oil they could make a profit of $700 million a year which would be sufficient in pursuing new socialist programs aimed at improving the standard of living in Ecuador. Correa is leaving the source the compensation money unknown to himself as well as the rest of the world.

Herein lies the big question: Should the rest of the world pay Ecuador to keep their oil in the ground and leave the rainforest undisturbed?

The reality is that most organizations with the goal of environmental preservation work on a ‘raise money to buy land’ system. And they often purchase land or the rights of development of the land that is under threat of development. Here at WiLDCOAST we know the routine well. Today we are actively raising money to establish conservation easement (i.e. the landowners give up their rights of development in exchange of an economic incentive) in Baja California, which is home to many endemic plant and animal species and also under threat of rapid development. It is obvious that economic incentives drive development of land and extraction of resources so in order to preserve these unique environments a new value must be placed on the area. More and more popular today is the preservation of rare species and protection of biodiversity. Slowly people are evolving to not just see value in ownership of material things but also see the value the existence of things. Biological studies and the study of environmental processes are saving areas through drawing global fascination. This momentum creates more of a purpose to environmentalism and gives hope for the future.

So President Correa is no so far off his rocker to suggest an outside source of economic compensation. Where Correa has gone wrong is in proposing a solution with no plan. Rather than threatening the global community he should be more proactive in forming coalitions with existing environmental groups. If Correa gets his way and the government of Ecuador is compensated annually, he has provided an example for other leaders of third world nations to follow. My opinion, Correa, if you are so up to date on today’s global environmental endeavors, get your puppets together and sell off Amazonian protected area as Carbon credits to the over-polluting Western industry.
How should the global environmental community react?
Have the rich buy up the worlds remaining unexploited land? Sounds good but it will take some serious convincing. Unfortunately, environmentalists don’t make millions.
Corina Marks