[Coral-List] UPDATE: ESA Threatened Corals (Sarah Heberling)
Gene Shinn
eshinn at marine.usf.edu
Tue Mar 18 12:21:14 EDT 2008
The explanation of critical-habitat designation in the coral
list by Jennifer Moore and Sarah Heberling
(http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/080303_Coral_CH_Presentation.pdf )
is certainly much easier to read than the version previously
published in the Federal Register. Well Done! Everyone should read it
and make comments
I have a few lingering questions that have a historical
background. How did it happen that NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
is in charge of protecting a coral species, especially within NOAA's
National Marine Sanctuaries, and for that matter in the Dry Tortugas
National Park? NOAA is under the Dept. of Commerce and National Parks
are under the Dept. of Interior. These are two vastly different
branches of government. Does not the National Marine Sanctuary
already protect corals? Do they not write tickets for violations? To
an ordinary citizen today, this dual-agency control could smack of
government out of control.
After reading this well-written piece, I concluded that the
critical central element has to do with PCE, i.e., "Primary
Constituent Elements." Does that sound more legal than biological to
anyone beside me? Reading this document once again made me wish some
historical geology had gone into the determination of PCEs. I well
remember being told that there was no place for geology on the team
that prepared the original Acropora document so I sat on the
sidelines and watched. Some historical geology could have
strengthened the critical-habitat rulings. For example, on page 6 it
says, "We identified four specific areas that contain the PCE. These
areas comprise all waters in the depths of 30 m and shallower to the
MHW or COLREG line off: 1) Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and
Monroe Counties, including the Marquesas Keys and the Dry Tortugas,
Florida" (emphasis is mine). I will not comment on the other three
areas that are outside the U.S. mainland. What caught my attention
was the inclusion of the Marquesas Keys. I am not aware of any
Acropora at or in the vicinity of the Marquesas Keys.
1) To the north is Ellis Rock, part of a trend of reefs extending
westward to New Ground Shoal. There is no Acropora along this reef
trend, and our core drilling showed there never has been. Our cores
showed these reefs (25 ft thick) were built entirely by massive
corals. Clearly, they do not possess and never did possess PCE.
2) The shifting sand of The Quicksands to the west of the Marquesas
lacks corals entirely (plus, much of the area is used for bombing
practice).
3) Boca Grande Channel to the east is hardbottom with a few migrating
sand waves. Mainly gorgonians and sponges populate the channel. No
Acropora there.
4) The area immediately to the south out to a depth of 15 ft is bare
Pleistocene oolite with occasional patches of massive head corals. We
also cored there. No signs of Acropora there either.
Several miles farther offshore beyond the turbid waters of Hawk
Channel is Cosgrove Shoal. That reef lacks Acropora, although there
may have been some in the geological past. There certainly is no
Acropora in the turbid stretch of water between the Marquesas and
Cosgrove Shoal.
The Marquesas proper, under the jurisdiction of the Fish and
Wildlife Service (Dept. of Interior), consists of a ring of
Halimeda-sand islands with a 3-mile-wide central lagoon. The lagoon
contains 17 ft of muddy carbonate sediment populated by marine
grasses and Halimeda. The sediment rests in a trough in the
Pleistocene oolite. The grass bed is often exposed during spring low
tides. No coral there. So, why did the Marquesas receive this
designation? Had some pre-existing geology been considered, this area
might not have become a critical habitat. Assuming science was the
sole motive for designation.
The Dry Tortugas (protected by the National Park Service) has
questionable PCE. At least that is what the geological history
indicates. The major reef (Southeast Reef) is 55 ft thick at its
shallowest part. This is the thickest buildup of Holocene coral
anywhere in Florida. We found only one living elkhorn (Acropora
palmata) when we drilled there in 1976. We found the same thickness
within and adjacent to Ft. Jefferson when we drilled in 2005. These
cores showed that massive head corals had built the reef.
There was staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) growing there in 1976,
but it was killed by a cold snap in the winter of 1977. That was the
year it snowed in Miami. That cold front apparently killed our
elkhorn transplants that were put there in 1976. The transplanting
was a simple attempt to determine why there was so little growing
there naturally.
When Agassiz mapped the Tortugas in 1881, there was more
Acropora but it was killed in the famous black-water event of 1879.
This was the historic red tide that decimated the fishing industry
along the entire west coast of Florida. What was growing there when
Agassiz mapped the area had grown since the die-off in 1879. Acropora
at Dry Tortugas comes and goes, most likely because of sporadic
incursions of cold water from the Gulf of Mexico during winter
months. Recent work at Tortugas has documented areas of Acropora
growth today.
Until recent years, there was an unusually lush thicket of
Acropora prolifera (not included in the threatened listing) growing
in a break at the northern end of Southeast Reef not far from the
fort. Today this coral is essentially dead. I have watched and
photographed its demise since 1997. Presumably this species of
Acropora has the same PCE requirements as the listed ones. One can
conclude it is an area of marginal PCE for Acropora.
The Dry Tortugas is isolated by 70 miles of water from the
Florida Keys and is more protected from human influences than any
area in Florida. Cold-water events, hurricanes, and red tides affect
the area, but today diseases are causing widespread death.
Historically, during the 6,000 years that reef corals have been
growing in Florida, there have been many die-offs documented by
coring and age dating. Those die-offs were not caused by human
activity. Until we determine what caused those die-offs, all the
critical habitat designations in the world will not bring this coral
back. If only the $827,220 to $1,633,229 estimated to administer this
designation (page 20) were spent on determining the cause of Acropora
demise (it happened all over the Caribbean), we might then be further
ahead and know what to protect them from. The chart on page 19
contains "Conditions Monitoring" but none of the 12 items listed
include research to determine what is killing the coral. On the same
page, there is some murky legalistic language such as, "may trigger
consultation under ESA section 7." The legalistic language was even
more obtuse in the Federal Register report. Oh, the webs we weave.
Gene
--
No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
Marine Science Center (room 204)
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list