Acropora spp., endangered

[CORALations]

Dear Alina Szmant and Listers: 

I'm sorry if you or anyone perceived my comments about Mr. Jaap's letter as
"snotty".  I don't know Walt Jaap...and meant nothing personal. I certainly
apologize to him if he percieved my comments as an attack. It was not meant
that way. His letter was posted with intent to foster discussions and I
discussed. I would offer to buy you and Walt an apologetic beer at the next
conference we mutually attend, but am afraid all the listers will start
hurling insults just to try and cash in on my guilt reflex!   

In my own defense...the quotes I commented on were directly taken from Mr.
Jaap's letter specifically to avoid misinterpretations! Endangered Species
Act is also binding in Puerto Rico and USVI's where, as you stated, there
are still living stands of a. palmata. There are also many large dead a.
palmata reefs.  If this species was listed as Endangered we may be able to
use this listing as a tool to protect reefs like the one you visited from
some monstrously ecologically insensitive development. These developments
are clearly not endangered.  
This may also prove a useful tool in the fight for better water quality. 

I never implied Walt "made" any Endangered Speicies criteria up. This
is unfair.

You make the comment these species don't fit the Endangered Species
criteria based on recruitment and I thank you for listing that criteria.. I
think defending his points in relation to this criteria would have made
Walt's letter stronger. this is just my opinion.     Those questions I
asked about endangered species act were not meant sarcastically....I was
honestly interested in obtaining more information. 

 You wrote: "(a) is  below reproductive/recuitment capacity in ALL it's
range (and I just heard last night about great healthy stands of it in
several places in the
 Bahamas), then they won't meet the specific guidelines to be designated as
 endangered species.  In my opinion, based on what I've seen, theyt are
not."

Could you or someone from this list define "below reproductive/recruitment
capacity" and how a healthy stand may indicate this species does not
qualify under this criteria.   Does a healthy stand automatically imply new
new recruits?  How is this evaluated?    Does this mean that as long as
there are healthy stands they will never qualify???    (These are honest
questions...not
meant snotty. I am trying to learn here! ) 

Again, very sorry for any misunderstandings,

Sincerely,

Mary Ann Lucking
Project Coordinator
CORALations
Amapola 14, Suite 901
Isla Verde, PR 00979
phone/fax: 787-791-7372
corals at caribe.net


----------
> From: Alina Szmant <aszmant at rsmas.miami.edu>
> To: CORALations <corals at caribe.net>; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: Acropora spp., endangered
> Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 6:27 PM
> 
> I have read with interest but stayed out of the fray until now, regarding
> the listing of Caribbean Acropora species on the endangered species list.
> However, the response of CORALations to Walter Jaap's posting made me
have
> to "speak up" because it mis-interpreted much of Walt's message and made
> some rather inane remarks.
> 
> 1)  The Endangered Species Act is an American piece of legislation that
is
> not binding in other countries.  Given that most of the range of these
> species is outside of US jurisdiction (as opposed to the spotted owl or
some
> such beast), inclusion of the Acropora's on the endangered  list won't
make
> all that much difference except to prevent importation of dead skeletons
of
> the corals from places like the Dominican Republic with I think still
allow
> harvesting and export.  Harvesting of corals and dredging of coral reef
> habitat is not allowed in any of the US waters.
> 
> 2)  Walt didn't make the requirements up:  the Endangered Species Act has
> some very specific criteria that need to be met in order to justify a
> species to be included on the list, not just a few people claiming that
the
> "sky is falling" for the Acropora's.  While I agree that in SOME
locations
> there have been dramatic decreases in the abundance of these species, in
> OTHERS they seem to be doing fine, and in fact I've seen some hugh
patches
> of recent Acropora palmata and cervicornis recruitment on the South coast
of
> Puerto Rico that would refute that the species is endangered as defined
by
> the Act.  Matter of fact, until Hurricane Georges came along Sept of '98
we
> had some very healthy and fast growing patches of A. palmata here in the
> Upper Fla Keys, that were vigorous spawners  and much evidence of
> recruitment, again refuting that the species is truly endangered.  I do
not
> know how they will recover from the hurricane and the severe state of
> bleaching they were in at the time the hurricane struck, and they may not
> recover fully here on Florida reefs immediately or even after a long
> time...I don't have a cristal ball... but, as Walt pointed out, until we
> really have the DATA that demonstrates that the specific species (a) is
> below reproductive/recuitment capacity in ALL it's range (and I just
heard
> last night about great healthy stands of it in several places in the
> Bahamas), then they won't meet the specific guidelines to be designated
as
> endangered species.  In my opinion, based on what I've seen, theyt are
not.
> 
> 3)  Walt never stated that CORAL REEFS shouldn't be protected, nor that
> water quality problems should be ignored, nor any of the other snotty
> comments in the CORALations message.  He simply pointed out that there
are
> numerous other routes and regulations in place other than the  ESA than
> should be used, and in some places are being used, to protect CORAL REEF
> ecosystems, which in the process protect all coral species not just a
> favorite few..
> 
> Alina Szmant
> 
>    At 12:18 PM 2/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dear Mr. Jaap: 
> >
> >You wrote:   " We do not believe that any of the aforementioned taxa of
> >corals could satisfy the criteria of endangered or threatened species."
> >
> >Can someone discuss this criteria or possibly scan and post?  How does
this
> >designation differ from appendix II listing?   
> >
> >You wrote:  "Firstly, to prove that a coral is threatened or at risk
> >throughout the Caribbean, Florida, Bahamas, Bermuda, and places in
between
> >is  costly, time consuming, and might be very difficult to prove the
case."
> >
> >Does this mean there is no data backing compliance to ES criteria for
the
> >taxa listed? I was under the impression that this discussion originated
> >based on evidence which suggests they fit the criteria. Are reefs
> >considered "shared resources" in these regions with respect to such
> >legislation? Would, for example,  a disease diagnosed in one region
> >resulting in extensive mortality of a species of coral be enough of a
cause
> >for concern to protect the same species in other regions given that
these
> >diseases are distributed by currents, or are you saying extensive
> >monitoring is required in each specific region?  In other words, at this
> >point in time, how much investigation actually needs to be done in order
to
> >see if criteria are met and to what regions would the protection apply?
> >
> >You wrote: "Are corals currently protected from human exploitation by
other
> >statutes
> >and management regimes?  I would like to think so."
> >  
> >I would like to think so too. Unfortunately, don't corals continue to
> >decline in large part due to anthropogenic stressors? The big picture is
we
> >don't seem to be "managing" our selves very well.  We can't even manage
> >trade, let alone less direct impacts from run off etc.... Look, for
> >example, at the large black coral galleries on St. Thomas, Cayman and
Las
> >Vegas.  There's a two page magazine add that reads like a documentary in
> >American Skies, the American Eagle magazine promoting this "art." How
are
> >permits allocated for such exploitation with so little knowledge about
the
> >"protected" species?  In St. Thomas, the existence of this well
publicized
> >gallery has encourage neighboring shops to engage in the trade. Many
> >fishermen in the DR are risking their lives to harvest this coral. 
> >My only concern about using endangered species act to protect coral is
that
> >the response to the question you posed: "Are corals currently protected
> >from human exploitation by other statutes and management regimes?  would
be
> >answered  as casually with "I would like to think so, they're considered
> >endangered species."  
> >
> >You wrote: "Would the endangered species act have provided immunity from
> >these anthropogenic disturbances?    Although, I believe you are
> >specifically referring to groundings when you discuss "anthropogenic
> >events" what about development related stress?   Has the endangered
species
> >act been used to stop development? With respect to groundings, could the
> >endangered species act be used to create legislation which diverts
tanker
> >traffic away from sensitive coral reef areas, minimizing future
groundings
> >and tanker related accidents? Has endangered species act ever been used
to
> >improve water quality? 
> >
> >You wrote: "Natural events such as hurricanes, ENSO related bleaching
> >episodes, and global warming are still occurring in spite of the efforts
> >that the
> > coral protection statutes and management regimes. Would additional
> > protective legislation such as the endangered species program provide
> > more protection to the reef resources?  "  
> >
> >I believe the answer to this depends on the proposed protective
> >legislation. We should be using past management failures to discuss
> >additional protective legislation.   With regard to the endangered
species
> >act, I would think we can use this as another tool to minimize
additional
> >anthropogenic stress to protected corals from proposed development and
> >water quality issues.   Your "natural events" argument  better defends
why
> >we should do more....not eliminate a legislative avenue that already
> >exists.    
> >
> > You wrote:   Coral populations are very dynamic.  In the case of
Acropora
> >palmata
> >(Lamarck, 1816) there is good evidence that it has gone through boom and
> > bust dynamics for quite some time. 
> >
> >Are you suggesting that no anthropogenic stressors are currently
> >contributing to the decline of this species?  
> >
> >	I respect you for posting your arguments to the web for discussion. I
also
> >have concerns about the effectiveness of the endangered species act to
> >protect corals.  To many people, corals are just rocks, or rocks with
> >worms.  However, unlike you, I see this as a cause for concern to open
> >discussion about more aggressive comprehensive legislation,  not grounds
> >for abandonment of laws currently on the books.  Other listers have
> >commented that by protecting one species of coral others will benefit. 
In
> >my opinion, the strongest argument you present is cost - benefit.  
> >However, I feel your cost-benefit argument fails if a substantial amount
of
> >data  exists which can be used to demonstrate compliance with ES
criteria
> >and other corals benefit by proximity to the species being listed.  
> >
> >Sincerely, 
> >
> >Mary Ann Lucking 
> >Project Coordinator
> >CORALations
> >Amapola 14, Suite 901
> >Isla Verde, PR 00979
> >phone/fax: 787-791-7372
> >corals at caribe.net
> >
> >> From: Walt Jaap STP <JAAP_W at epic7.dep.state.fl.us>
> >> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> Subject: Acropora spp., endangered
> >> Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 6:07 AM
> >> 
> >> [Moderator's note: this letter to Tom Hourigan from Walt Jaap was
> >> reprinted with permission from Walt for the purpose of encouraging
> >> discussion and contrasting or complementary viewpoints.]
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 22 February, 1999
> >> 
> >> Dr. Thomas F. Hourigan
> >> Marine Biodiversity Coordinator
> >> Office of Protected Resources, NOAAF/PR
> >> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
> >> National Marine Fisheries Service
> >> 1315 East-West Highway
> >> Silver Spring, MD 20910
> >> tom.hourigan at noaa.gov
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Dear Dr. Hourigan:
> >> 
> >> I am responding to your internet request about Acropora spp. and other
> >> Scleractinian species for inclusion as endangered or threatened
species.
> >> We have encountered this option several times from different groups
over
> >> the years; and have looked at the option to see if it was reasonable,
> >> possible, and would it do a better job protecting corals than the
> >> existing statutes and management regimes.  We have concluded that it
is
> >> not the best approach for several reasons.
> >> 
> >> Firstly, to prove that a coral is threatened or at risk throughout the
> >> Caribbean, Florida, Bahamas, Bermuda, and places in between is 
costly,
> >> time consuming, and might be very difficult to prove the case.
> >> 
> >> Are corals currently protected from human exploitation by other
statutes
> >> and management regimes?  I would like to think so.  In Florida, we
have
> >> a state statute that protects all Scleractinia, Millepora spp, and
> >> Gorgonia spp from harvest, being sold in a commercial establishment,
and
> >> from destruction on the sea floor.  This statute has been in effect
> >> since the mid 1970s.  At the federal level the most extensive coral
> >> protection is found under the Magnuson Act:  The Gulf of Mexico and
> >> South Atlantic Fisherie s Councils cosponsored the work that resulted
in
> >> the Coral and Coral Reef Fishery Management Plan.  This plan parallels
> >> the Florida statute, protecting the Scleractinia, Millepora spp, and
> >> Gorgonia spp. This management regime was recently incorporated into
the
> >> Essential Fish Habitat Plan by the Fishery Management Councils.
> >> 
> >> The Department of Interior manages two National Parks (Biscayne and
Dry
> >> Tortugas) in which all corals are protected.  The State of Florida and
> >> NOAA are the trustees of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
> >> which includes all the reefs outside the National Park boundaries from
> >> Fowey Rocks to west of Dry Tortugas, again the regulations protect
> >> corals and reefs.   When anthropogenic events occur, the trustees have
> >> successfully prosecuted responsible parties or have negotiated
effective
> >> restoration and mon itoring plans on the sites.  Settlements were in
the
> >> range of millions of dollars. Would the endangered species act have
> >> provided immunity from these anthropogenic disturbances? I do not
think
> >> it would have.
> >> 
> >> Natural events such as hurricanes, ENSO related bleaching episodes,
and
> >> global warming are still occurring in spite of the efforts that the
> >> coral protection statutes and management regimes.  Would additional
> >> protective legislation such as the endangered species program provide
> >> more protection to the reef resources?  I am skeptical that adding a
few
> >> Scleractinia corals to the endangered and threatened species list
would
> >> be of benefit.
> >> 
> >> Coral populations are very dynamic.  In the case of Acropora palmata
> >> (Lamarck, 1816) there is good evidence that it has gone through boom
and
> >> bust dynamics for quite some time.  In 1882, Alexander Agassiz
reported
> >> 44 hectares of A. palmata at Dry Tortugas.  In 1982, Gary Davis
reported
> >> that, A. palmata coverage declined to 0.6 hectares, ten years later we
> >> measured the remnant population and noted little change.  The decline
> >> was probably caused by hurricanes and other meteorological phenomena.
> >> 
> >> In retrospect, or as they claim hind sight is perfect, when the debate
> >> over the Everglades Park boundaries was first debated in the late
1940s,
> >> Gill Voss told me an initial proposal had all of the Florida Keys with
> >> the exception of Key West and Marathon included in Everglades National
> >> Park.  Local politics prevailed and the end result is a highly
urbanized
> >> Florida Keys in which the environmental quality has suffered from user
> >> abuse.  Ah, if we could only go back in time and make it right.
> >> 
> >> We recognize that your intentions are well meaning and appreciate your
> >> concern.  We respectfully disagree that the corals mentioned in your
> >> communication should be considered for nomination as endangered or
> >> threatened species.  We do not believe that any of the aforementioned
> >> taxa of corals could satisfy the criteria of endangered or threatened
> >> species.   Since we have existing statutes and management regimes that
> >> are designed to protect corals and reefs, the proposed status would
have
> >> little or no effect o n these resources.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Sincerely
> >> 
> >> Walter C. Jaap Associate Research Scientist Florida Marine Research
> >> Institute
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >
> **********************************************
> Dr. Alina M. Szmant
> Coral Reef Research Group
> RSMAS-MBF
> University of Miami
> 4600 Rickenbacker Cswy.
> Miami FL 33149
> 
> TEL: (305)361-4609
> FAX: (305)361-4600 or 361-4005
> E-mail:  ASZMANT at RSMAS.MIAMI.EDU
> **********************************************
>