The Endangered Species Act and how it affects reef keeping

[HecticDialectics]

Section 9 protects the endangered or threatened species, not people's rights to possess or sell them.

 

if you kill one in your possession you're in violation...

 

The impact of wild collection is real, but relatively small (and the impact of aquaculture and mariculture activities is virtually negligible). Plus, regulating wild imports would significantly lessen the ecological impact to the reefs.

 

"Some of the most serious threats include impacts related to climate change (rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification and disease), ecological effects of fishing, and poor land-use practices."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140827_corallisting.html

--------------------------

November 30, 2012

"Listing species as endangered does not prohibit activities like fishing or diving, but prohibits the specific 'take' of those species, including harming, wounding, killing, or collecting the species. It also prohibits imports, exports, and commercial activities dealing in the species. These protections are not automatic for species listed as threatened, but can be established for them as well."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121130_coralspecies.html

--------------------------

September 2011

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐PIFSC‐27

Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species

Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

 

From page 35 of this report (BRT stands for the Biological Review Team),

"In the absence of species-specific abundance and trend information, BRT members relied heavily upon the best available information on the spatial extent of the species ranges and on their understanding of the likely impacts of the suite of threats on each of the individual coral populations over the period until 2100. The lack of adequate information on complex coral ecology and interactions between threats made the assessment of extinction risk for each of the 82 nominal coral species extremely challenging and uncertain."

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/pubs/tech/NOAA_Tech_Memo_PIFSC_27.pdf

--------------------------

December 7, 2012

"We, NMFS, have completed comprehensive status reviews under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 82 reef-building coral species in response to a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the species as either threatened or endangered. We have determined, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and efforts being made to protect the species, that 12 of the petitioned coral species warrant listing as endangered (five Caribbean and seven Indo-Pacific), 54 coral species warrant listing as threatened (two Caribbean and 52 Indo-Pacific), and 16 coral species (all Indo-Pacific) do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Additionally, we have determined, based on the best scientific and commercial information available and efforts undertaken to protect the species, two Caribbean coral species currently listed warrant reclassification from threatened to endangered. We are announcing that 18 public hearings will be held during the public comment period to provide additional opportunities and formats to receive public input."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-07/html/2012-29350.htm

--------------------------

August 27, 2014

NOAA list 20 new coral species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

"In total, 22 species of coral are now protected under the Endangered Species Act, including the two corals (elkhorn and staghorn) listed as threatened in 2006. Fifteen of the newly listed species occur in the Indo-Pacific and five in the Caribbean (see table below)."

 

Caribbean Waters:

Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn)

Acropora palmata (Elkhorn)

Mycetophyllia ferox

Dendrogyra cylindrus

Orbicella annularis

Orbicella faveolata

Orbicella franksi

 

Pacific Waters:

Acropora globiceps

Acropora jacquelineae

Acropora lokani

Acropora pharaonis

Acropora retusa

Acropora rudis

Acropora speciosa

Acropora tenella

Anacropora spinosa

Euphyllia paradivisa

Isopora crateriformis

Montipora australiensis

Pavona diffluens

Porites napopora

Seriatopora aculeata

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2014/08/corals_listing.html

(These include Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora.)

--------------------------

Endangered Species Act | Section 4

"(e) SIMILARITY OF APPEARANCE CASES.The Secretary may, by regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act if he finds that (A) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; ( B ) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and © such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act."

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/section-4.html

--------------------------

 

This could make similar looking corals (and fish) be treated as threatened or endangered species. In essence, making all species of Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora treated as threatened (which can be awarded the same protections as endangered species). This is the list at the moment, but there are plans to expand it. Even species of fish that can be captive bred (like the Banggai Cardinal) may be classified as endangered.

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/03/31/banggai-cardinal-moves-closer-to-endangered-species-listing/

 

As we've seen, the selection process/criteria isn't based on actual size or number of colonies in the wild, but rather on estimates and modeling tools. And while threatened species are not currently being treated as endangered, it is within their rights to do so (making it illegal to collect, import, sell, or possess). The potential impact of these regulation changes to our hobby/industries could be substantial (to the extent of ending reef keeping for individuals).

Huh? I don't need a lesson in the esa lol. You didn't post anything at all new in that mess of copy-paste did you? I thought there were some new listings planned but I don't see anything indicating that's the case? What's even the point of this whole thread? That stuff has been listed as threatened for awhile.

 

Also just realized you don't know what a section 9 take is. It only applies to endangered species unless extended by regulation. Was there something extending the take provision for the listed threatened coral?

[seabass]

Seabass. In the last 2 paragraphs, it states that threatened species can be treated as endangered, are they actually considering doing that, or is it just from a source with an agenda, fear mongering to gain support?

I added these paragraphs to summarize the content of the video and the links that I provided. For now, threatened species are legal to possess and trade, but it is written in the regulations that this privilege can be revoked.

• "These protections [which are offered to endangered species] are not automatic for species listed as threatened, but can be established for them as well."
• "The Secretary may, by regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act..."

I'm not saying that this will happen, just that it's possible. And while the related industries and conservation-minded reef keepers wish that it won't happen, there are conservationists and political activists that hope that it will.

 

Edit: Now it seems much more likely to happen.

 

 

Huh? I don't need a lesson in the esa lol. You didn't post anything at all new in that mess of copy-paste did you? I thought there were some new listings planned but I don't see anything indicating that's the case? What's even the point of this whole thread? That stuff has been listed as threatened for awhile.

The last listing was last August, when there was 20 new corals listed as threatened. I posted the links as you requested, and I provided quotes in an attempt to keep it accurate.

 

Edit: There is another proposed listing for 81 marine species.

 

Also just realized you don't know what a section 9 take is. It only applies to endangered species unless extended by regulation. Was there something extending the take provision for the listed threatened coral?

No provisions. While regulations allow for threatened species (or even species that look similar to threatened or endangered species) to be treated as if they were endangered, and allow even this status to change at any time, this is currently not the case.

 

Edit: They are now currently taking public comments regarding extending protections of the 20 species listed in August.

[HecticDialectics]

Oh OK, cool. Yeah, nothing new to see here folks.

 

Some coral were listed as threatened last year after like 8 years or something. Wasn't that proposed in 2006?

 

Doesn't really matter for reefing. Y'all should worry more about import regs imo

[seabass]

Some coral were listed as threatened last year after like 8 years or something. Wasn't that proposed in 2006?

The first two species were listed as threatened in 2006. Then in 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned NOAA to list 83 coral species under the Endangered Species Act. In 2011, they agreed to 82 of these species. After two studies, in 2012, NOAA proposed to list 12 species as endangered, 54 as threatened, and to reclassify Elkhorn and Staghorn as endangered. However, after the public comment period and receiving new information, 20 species were actually listed as threatened in 2014 (bringing the total to 22).

 

Edit: Now there is a proposal for 81 more marine species and NOAA is considering proposing protective regulations for the 20 species listed as threatened.

[HecticDialectics]

Meh

[seabass]

The current listing request was made by the group, WildEarth Guardians in 2013. They have petitioned to list 81 marine species under the Endangered Species Act (including 23 species of corals). NOAA feels that 3 of the petitioned corals (Cantharellus noumeae, Siderastrea glynni, and Tubastraea floreana) should be listed as endangered species under the ESA. They are taking comments until 02/17/2015.

• Cantharellus noumeae, is related to Short Tentacle Plate Coral (Fungia sp.) and Long Tentacle Plate Coral (Heliofungia sp.)
• Tubastraea floreana is related to the Cup Coral, Pagoda (Turbinaria sp.) and Tube Coral, Sun Coral (Tubastrea sp.)

Similarity of appearance cases could potentially pose a problem for reef keepers. If it is too difficult to distinguish between an endangered species and a similar but not endangered species, a new listing could be made to include the non-endangered species as well. Similarity of appearance cases could potentially make Fungia, Cup, and Sun corals illegal.

[metrokat]

If you can prove 100% the frag you last bought from a dealer is not from a wild-caught endangered species, then carry on. If not, then you are saying regulators should trust your claim (and the dealer's/wholesaler's claims), which may have varying degrees of certainty. That is fuzzy logic.

I would happily buy from any vendor that can show proof of a coral not being wild-caught and endangered. With a certificate that I can keep and pass on should I decide to sell or propagate that coral for sale. Maybe that should be the focus of these endangered and threatened species lists.

[farkwar]

i dont see the point because it isnt harming the envirnment

 

Its because the EPA is a bureaucracy.

 

Those work best, from their point of view, when their incompetence is at its highest.

[HecticDialectics]

The http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petitions/81_multi_species_marine_petition_2013.pdf'>current listing request was made the group, WildEarth Guardians in 2013. They have petitioned to list 81 marine species under the Endangered Species Act (including 23 species of corals). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/corals.htm'>NOAA feels that 3 of the petitioned corals (Cantharellus noumeae, Siderastrea glynni, and Tubastraea floreana) should be listed as endangered species under the ESA. They are taking comments until 02/17/2015.

 

If they're endangered they probably should be protected...

[Mustang Boy]

I believe they should be protected Hectic, but a reason many of these corals are in danger of being extinct is not because of collection for the aquarium trade it is other causes that listing them as endangered won't change. I also think you will be singing a different tune if they list frogspawn, those acros, and percula clownfish as endangered and make them illegal to possess, even the ones you currently have. You will not be allowed to throw out those items you already have and you will not be allowed to keep them, on top of that if they deem necessary they can outlaw all similar looking corals/fish, this means all euphyllia, torches and hammers as well as all frogspawn, all acros, and even ocellaris clowns, now all of these will also be illegal to own and possess. Yes all of these corals and fish that are readily aquacultured and tank bred will now be illegal to possess. Now we aren't saying we don't want these corals/fish listed as endangered if it is deemed they really are endangered, we want the laws to be looked at since they were not created with corals in mind, they were created for animals that are not readily housed in your home, we want new regulations that would allow aquaculutred, maricultured, and tank bred specimens to be legal to possess, also want current corals/fish that are already in our systems to be legal to keep.

[HecticDialectics]

So we shouldn't list an endangered species because it may be might impact the aesthetic of a tank in your living room? Lol

 

 

Just an FYI for your silly fear mongering, out of 4543 vertebrates and invertebrates, only 12 are listed as similar of appearance - threatened. Exactly 0 are listed similar of appearance endangered...

[kimberbee]

Yo, seabass, what can we DO about it?

[HecticDialectics]

You can write a letter expressing your hypothetical concern lol

[seabass]

Yo, seabass, what can we DO about it?

I think it's good to support organizations that preserve and restore coral reefs like:

• Coral Restoration Foundation
• SECORE

But you can also support the PIJAC Aquatic Defense Fund, which may help give you a voice in the process.

 

I'd guess that most reef keepers are unaware of the ESA listings. Sure, like HecticDialectics has been stating, it has almost no effect on our hobby at this time. However, people are petitioning for more and more coral (and fish) to be listed as endangered. And modeling could lead one to believe that the end goal is to protect all reef building corals under the ESA.

 

I know concern about this might make us look like we don't care about the environment, but just the opposite is true. Our hobby (and associated industries) have advanced aquaculture and mariculture techniques, which are now being used in most reef restoration projects. Plus, the aquaculture and mariculture industries have a negligible impact on wild reefs.

 

Supporting reef conservation and restoration is important. But addressing the real threats to the reefs should be the focus. Even though wild collection has only a small impact to the reefs, I'd actually vote for a ban on all wild imports of coral to the US. I think this is inevitable. However, I would hate to see us make cultured fish and coral illegal in the process.

 

Edit: Now that public comments are being taken regarding the 20 species being considered for additional protections under Section 4(d) Rule for Threatened Corals, you could leave a comment here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158

[HecticDialectics]

Interesting.

[seabass]

I would happily buy from any vendor that can show proof of a coral not being wild-caught and endangered. With a certificate that I can keep and pass on should I decide to sell or propagate that coral for sale. Maybe that should be the focus of these endangered and threatened species lists.

LiveAquaria offers Certified Captive Grown Corals (CCGC) that come with a certificate of authenticity.

[HecticDialectics]

I can go print out a certificate right now for all the coral you want to buy lol

[Mustang Boy]

So we shouldn't list an endangered species because it may be might impact the aesthetic of a tank in your living room? Lol

 

 

Just an FYI for your silly fear mongering, out of 4543 vertebrates and invertebrates, only 12 are listed as similar of appearance - threatened. Exactly 0 are listed similar of appearance endangered...

 

No I am not saying we shouldn't list these corals as endangered and if you would read entire statements you would know that. I am stating the laws need to be looked at because they were not designed with corals in mind, corals being a creature that can be and is being easily aquacultured privately, with the current laws any steps being taken to aquaculture corals for both restoration and the home aquaria would be deemed illegal.

[seabass]

... with the current laws any steps being taken to aquaculture corals for both restoration and the home aquaria would be deemed illegal.

They are in the process of issuing permits for research and restoration/"enhancement" projects (this does not include aquaculture for commerce, home propagation, or possession). Applications may take up to a year to process. To me, this structure is being put in place to support restoration efforts as the number of endangered (or treated as endangered) species inevitably grows. Here are the links:

 

"Scientific research and/or enhancement permits are required under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the

ESA to conduct scientific research or to enhance the propagation and survival of endangered species. Permits will be required for any coral listed as endangered for all life stages including gametes and both live and dead parts. Examples of activities that may require a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit include, but are not limited to:

• Collection, including sampling and swabbing
• Experiments in the wild or captivity
• Application of chemicals or introduction of pathogens to coral
• Restoration, including experiments, reattachment and stabilization activities
• Surveys/counts and monitoring that involve physical contact with coral
• Import of samples from the high seas or collected legally in another country
• Export of samples from the U.S. to another country"

"Import or export may be authorized only for research or enhancement purposes by permit. Endangered species cannot be maintained solely for the purpose of public display... You can apply for a permit by email or mail. Application instructions are at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/esa_permits.htm#scientific The permitting process takes approximately one year."

 

Source: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/coral/elkhorn_coral/document/FAQ/proposed_endangered_permit.pdf

It's a little concerning that they include dead parts. This man was arrested for transporting a shipment "whose manifest stated it was rock, broken gravel and coral sand" which after analysis, turned up endangered species of coral.

[HecticDialectics]

T

It's a little concerning that they include dead parts. This man was arrested for transporting "rock, broken gravel and coral sand" which after analysis, turned up an endangered species of coral. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

No. He was arrested for illegally importing 40 tons of coral. Import/export law. The fact that some was endangered was just an FYI add-on...

 

The coral came from the Philippines, which bans all coral exports. U.S. laws ban importation of wildlife harvested in violation of foreign laws.

[seabass]

No. He was arrested for illegally importing 40 tons of coral. Import/export law. The fact that some was endangered was just an FYI add-on... The coral came from the Philippines, which bans all coral exports. U.S. laws ban importation of wildlife harvested in violation of foreign laws.

If we want to get technical, "Gunther Wenzek, a German national, was arraigned today in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., on a nine count indictment charging him with three felony counts of smuggling protected coral into the United States port of Portland, Ore., three felony counts of violating the Lacey Act and three misdemeanor charges of violating the Endangered Species Act, the Justice Department announced." http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/german-national-arrested-smuggling-coral-philippines

 

I agree, it was a poor example. However, what I was getting at, was that "dead parts" may enjoy the same protections as live coral. I just wonder how that translates to sand and rock under the ESA.

 

I found the following in a couple of bags of Caribsea Arag-Alive Fiji Pink sand:

It contains shells, pieces of shells, pieces of reef rock, and coral fragments. According to the law, if any of these pieces (or even smaller pieces) were protected, this sand would be in violation of the law. As the list of protected species grows, determining if sand is protected or not will become increasingly difficult.

[HecticDialectics]

It concerns me that you think his actions were OK. How can you not think plundering and importing 40 tons of coral against multiple laws is wrong?

 

Makes me think twice about your real intentions here.

[seabass]

It is my understanding that this was rock, rubble, dead broken fragments, crushed coral, and/or sand. Call it coral fragments if you wish, as it was all originally created from reef building corals (just like most of the sand on our beaches). But like I said, bad example; especially if it was illegally harvested, exported, or imported. To be honest, I don't know that much about this particular case. You can question my intentions if you wish. I'm not aware that I was trying to do anything but raise awareness.

 

But, I do like our hobby; and I don't want to see the aquaculture and mariculture (or supporting) industries affected. I don't feel that any of these have to be in conflict with preserving our wild reefs, and may actually (either directly or indirectly) contribute to research and/or restoration efforts. I just want to enjoy the hobby without making a significant impact on wild reefs. Your position that threatened coral only belongs in the ocean is also valid (although maybe a bit unusual on a reef keeping forum).

 

It seems like it will be only a matter of time before most (if not all) reef building corals will be considered at least threatened in the future. I think that it would be a shame if future generations couldn't enjoy the beauty of these creatures in the wild (or in captive environments, where they can wonder about where they came from). Our hobby brings an awareness to people that they might not otherwise experience. And awareness can also be a very important part of conservation.

[CrazyCarl]

Oh OK, cool. Yeah, nothing new to see here folks.

 

Some coral were listed as threatened last year after like 8 years or something. Wasn't that proposed in 2006?

 

Doesn't really matter for reefing. Y'all should worry more about import regs imo

What are the import regs that we should worry about?

[HecticDialectics]

 

What are the import regs that we should worry about?

There aren't any you should worry about. But in seabass's vast ocean of hypotheticals, import laws on wildlife would be more likely than some vast use of the similar appearance section of the ESA in a way its never been used before to destroy hobbyist reef keeping lol