[Coral-List] 82 Corals Status Review under the US Endangered Species Act
Christopher Hawkins
chwkins at yahoo.com
Thu May 31 20:21:50 EDT 2012
Hello Gene (and all):
I share some of the frustrations. With regard to your question:
"And finally, why is National Marine Fisheries involved with coral protection, especially within NOAA Marine Sanctuaries where all corals are already protected?"
The petition to list the 82 coral coral species was brought via the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The legislation directs that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are the two entities tasked with evaluating a species-listing petition and recommending action/no action. NMFS handles almost all marine species petitions (there are a few exceptions).
Best,
Chris
--- On Wed, 5/30/12, Eugene Shinn <eshinn at marine.usf.edu> wrote:
From: Eugene Shinn <eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
Subject: [Coral-List] 82 Corals Status Review under the US Endangered Species Act
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 11:07 AM
Well here we go again! The Center for Biodiversity has masterminded
yet another misuse of the Endangered Species Act by suing
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service to list 82 species of corals.
It wouldn't be an unwarranted move if there were scientific certainty
about what is causing their demise. Common sense says, "If you don't
know what's killing something, then what do you protect it from?"
That was the case back when CBD forced endangered status on Acropora
species several years ago. Did listing of Acropora stop the demise of
that genus in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary where all
coral species are protected? The answer is no. Ironically, even then
there were areas in the Caribbean where the genus flourished, and
there are still areas where it flourishes. Curiously, A. cervicornis
is growing magnificently suspended in the water column on lines in
Ken Nedimyer's coral nursery within FKNMS. They and other acroporids
just do not grow well on coral reefs where they flourished until the
late 1970s. There is also good evidence now that the white-band
disease that wiped out Acropora is caused by a bacterial infection.
Unfortunately listing did not get rid of the mystery microbe. Quite
likely it is disease-resistant genotypes that have remained resistant
to the disease. That would explain why geological research indicates
there have been two major extinctions of A. cervicornis and rebirths
in the FKNMS during the past 6,000 years (Shinn et al. 2003; Shinn
2004). Acropora growth rate, if unchecked, would have allowed it to
grow as much as 600 ft. vertically during the period that Florida
reefs have existed.
So now it is 82 coral species the CBD is using to advance their
cause, eight of which are Caribbean species. Since I have conducted
geological and growth-rate research in the Caribbean, it is best that
I restrict my comments to those species. First, I think we can all
agree that dredging or ship groundings can smother any of the species
of concern. Such incidents are of limited extent, and they are
preventable and can be controlled. Unfortunately, listing them as
threatened or endangered cannot abate the widespread death of
Caribbean coral species due to disease. Listing is therefore a
totally useless act that likely may have unintended or sinister
preplanned consequences.
Black-band disease has devastated the Montastraea group of
corals, yet we do not know the causes both in Florida and around
sparsely populated islands of the Caribbean. Listing certainly will
not bring those species back to full health. The same can be said
about Dendrogyra cylindrus that is distributed throughout the
Caribbean but never in great abundance. Colonies of that coral still
grow in the FKNMS where all corals are protected. That species never
was abundant in the 50+ years the author has been diving there (Shinn
2011). Dichocoenia stokesii is a minor component on reefs that
automatically dies when it reaches the size of a soccer ball. Many
died from what was called white plague (a form of bleaching that
started at the base of the coral) in the 1980s. One can still find
healthy Dichocoenia, and there is little disease today. Furthermore,
it is not a significant reef builder. I have no idea why Agaricia
lamarcki or Mycetophyllia ferox are included on the list. They
certainly are not keystone reef builders, and I am certain they are
not threatened throughout their range. As I remember from the first
attempt to list D. cylindrus back in the 1970s, a species must be
threatened throughout its range to qualify for E.S.A listing. One has
to wonder about the benefit of listing these corals since it simply
creates more rules and regulations, not to mention paper, time, and
effort, and be ineffective at saving these species. We can all
remember the Caribbean-wide demise of the urchin Diadema antillarum
in the early 1980s some 30 years ago. Diadema remains rare and
nowhere near its former abundance. Had that pivotal coral reef
organism been listed in the 1980s, would it have been brought back to
pre die-off levels? Of course not! Acropora cervicornis died off at
roughly the same time as Diadema. If A. cervicornis had been listed
back in the 1980s, would it be flourishing today? One has to wonder
what the coral reef and the CBD benefits from listing of these corals?
I suspect what is behind the proposed listing is coral bleaching
that may be caused by a warming ocean that the IPCC and Al Gore say
is caused by increasing levels of CO2 that have been rising and
currently approaching 0.004 percent of the atmosphere. That is a
worldwide highly contentious political issue that will not be
resolved soon. Is that why the CBD wants these corals listed? Or is
it the threat of alkalinity shift, a.k.a. ocean acidification? All
thinking people know that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere and oceans
for many years if anthropogenic sources ceased tomorrow. The lawyers
at CBD surely are aware of that. Maybe their action is a way to
squeeze tax-exempted funding from gullible and frightened citizens?
What is their motive or motives? Why is CBD doing this? Is there some
collusion between CBD/lawyers and the government agencies that will
squeeze more money from Congress to administer the extra burden of
enforcement? I do know that whether they win or lose their lawsuit
against NOAA, our taxes pay their legal fees. Now that's a pretty
cynical motive but as they say, "follow the money." And finally, why
is National Marine Fisheries involved with coral protection,
especially within NOAA Marine Sanctuaries where all corals are
already protected? If there is government waste and overlap, then
this may be a poster-boy example. Gene
Shinn, E.A., Reich, C.D., Hickey, T.D., and Lidz, B.H., 2003,
Staghorn tempestites in the Florida Keys: Coral Reefs, v. 22, p.
91-97.
Shinn, E.A., 2004, The mixed value of environmental regulations: Do
acroporid corals deserve endangered species status? Marine Pollution
Bulletin, v. 49, p. 531-533.
Shinn, E.A., 2011, Are we loving 'em to death? Marine Pollution
Bulletin, v. 62, p. 2581-2583.
--
No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
College of Marine Science Room 221A
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list