NMFS seeking public comments on protective regulations for 20 corals

[mFrame]

link

NMFS SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ISSUING PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS FOR 20 CORALS SPECIES
Comments due March 16, 2015

The Issue:

On January 13, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register requesting public input regarding the potential need for protective regulations for 20 coral species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (80 Fed. Reg. 1616). These 20 coral species were previously listed by NMFS on September 10, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 53,851). Fifteen of these corals are Indo-Pacific species; 5 are Caribbean species. Key documents regarding the listing provide important background information.

At the time NMFS listed the 20 corals, the agency did not propose protective regulations for the coral species. Instead, NMFS indicated at the time of listing it would consider the need for such regulations in future processes.

Section 4(d) of ESA provides that whenever any species is listed as a "threatened" species pursuant to the ESA, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems "necessary and advisable" to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. Such prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, the import and export of threatened species, and possessing, selling, transporting, or shipping any species taken in violation of the ESA.

Section 4(d) of the ESA provides the Secretary with considerable flexibility to tailor protective regulations for threatened species. NMFS is now in the process of determining if any regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the 20 listed coral species. NMFS states in the ANPR that it is seeking information from the public to make this determination, and that the agency will evaluate a number of factors in determining the need for protective regulations. These factors include the biological status of the species, the potential impact of activities such as trade, import, and export on the species, and other factors, such as the efficacy of existing conservation measures.

The Potential Impact of ESA Regulations on the Marine Trade and Aquarium Hobby:

If NMFS applies all of the prohibitions contained in Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA to the 20 listed coral species, a range of activities would become prohibited under federal law unless a party obtains further authorization from NMFS. These prohibited activities would include importing or exporting the species; possessing, transporting or selling the listed species; or handling, capturing, or holding the species in captivity.

NMFS is now requesting public comment to help them understand and analyze the impacts of various activities, as well as the "efficacy" of ongoing conservation activities (e.g., CITES or other government regulatory regimes or non-governmental programs).

PIJAC position:

PIJAC's Aquatic Committee is formulating comments in response to this ANPR, and PIJAC is soliciting input from PIJAC members, concerned hobbyists and others that have information relevant to the issues specifically addressed in the ANPR. Please send your information and thoughts to PIJAC no later than March 1, 2015, for use in this effort. Also, do not hesitate to contact [email protected] for more information. And - do not forget to submit your comments to NMFS by no later than March 16, 2015.

Recommended Action:

NMFS acknowledges that it has flexibility under Section 4(d) of the ESA to tailor protective regulations for threatened species to prohibit those actions that impact species conservation. PIJAC will work with NMFS to educate the agency on the range of actions undertaken by PIJAC members and hobbyists that positively contribute to species conservation. In doing so, PIJAC will provide information to NMFS to assist the agency in identifying necessary and advisable regulations in view of the unique life history characteristics exhibited by these species.

Review the Federal Register notice at page 1618 where NMFS list types of information it seeks:

1. Current and planned activities involving each of the 20 species and possible impacts on the species
2. Impacts within each species range by any of the following threats: ocean warming, disease, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, predation, trophic effects of fishing, and collection and trade.
3. Information on which Section 9(a)(1) prohibitions on take "are necessary and advisable for the conservation of species, with associated justification."
4. Specific activities which should be prohibited by species and provide justification(s)
5. Specific activities that should be excepted from any prohibitions because the activity either provides a conservation benefit or does not detract from the conservation of the species and provide justification(s)
6. Existing permitting programs that may already provide for conservation of the species through activity evaluation(s) and permitting processes and provide justification(s)
7. Economic costs and benefits likely to result from the protective regulations.

Submit your written comments to NMFS on or before March 16, 2015, online or by US mail.

For online submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov or click on www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158.

Then click the ''Comment Now'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

For mail submissions (Reference NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158):

For Indo-Pacific corals listed in Table 1 send to:

Lance Smith, Protected Resources Division,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Pacific Islands Regional Office,

NOAA Inouye Regional Center,

1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176,

Honolulu, HI 96818

For Caribbean species listed in Table 2 send to:

Stephania Bolden, Protected Resources Division,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Southeast Regional Office, 263

13th Avenue South,

Saint Petersburg, FL 33701

[ceastman]

U.S. DISTRIBUTION OF 15 THREATENED INDO-PACIFIC CORAL SPECIES

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 aculeate

U.S. DISTRIBUTION OF FIVE NEWLY-LISTED CARIBBEAN CORALS

Mycetophyllia ferox

Dendrogyra cylindrus

Orbicella annularis

Orbicella faveolata

Orbicella franksi

[FarmerTy]

Not the jacquelineae and lokanis!!!

[ckyuv]

I know who I can call crime stoppers on

[mFrame]

A very valid follow-up on reefbuilders. If you haven't taken the time to respond and you enjoy the hobby and your corals, please do.

Last week, we reported on the process to start legislation to ban 20 species of corals in the U.S. Territories. The process does take time to work its way through the United States and as we again reported last week the phase the 20 corals are in is the commenting phase. The commenting phase is very important because it acts as a barometer if the National Marine Fisheries Service were to issue a “no take” provision on the corals then there would be a public outcry.

Sadly though it looks more and more like the corals are headed into receiving that “no take” (4d) provision. As of this writing the industry has only given 12 comments. Suppose for moment we can live without those 20 corals but as we were talking to Jack Kent this morning that is not our only concern:

“The intent of these regulations is to stop corals from coming into the country at all and to outlaw selling them or taking them across state lines. This will devastate the hobby, if we don’t take strong action. NOAA picked 20 diverse corals, that look like most of the stonies in the world, just so they could use the regulation that says if an agent can’t identify something and it looks similar to a threatened species, they can stop the importation just based on that.”

In other words agents who inspect coral shipments won’t be able to tell the differences between these 20 corals and other species and to “play it safe” will block the importation of corals that might look like the original twenty. And for all intensive purposes Jack Kent, who could be called one of the original founder fathers of the industry is sadly, very much right.

The scenario he outlined is already happening to other corals that have already received a “no take” (4d) provision but most hobbyists aren’t aware to the interworking’s of live stock distribution here in the United States and it’s territories and they should not have too, until now.

If you’re a hobbyist reading this now—head on over and write something up regarding the twenty corals.
If you’re a professional aquarist—head on over and write something regarding the twenty corals.
If you’re a wholesaler, importer, distribution or a consumer packaged goods company who profits on the industry—head on over and write something regarding the twenty corals.

All of you will be glad you did several years from now.

Comment Link.

[FarmerTy]

Yikes! C'mon guys, just take a couple of minutes and write something... otherwise we'll be up a creek!

[FarmerTy]

Make that 13! I just wrote this between handling negotiations for my listing but I figured it would help. Don't judge the content as I wrote it on the fly.

Please everyone, make a thoughtful comment if you have the time. They stated specifically that this is not a vote or a popularity contest so don't comment just to comment. Try to have a good argument as to why this is not beneficial and not the right route for conservation of corals. There is a better way and if you think of one or think of how this is not the way, please comment!

We can all sit there and hope that someone else will write something impactful that changes their mind on the regulation but if we're all sitting there looking around and nobody does anything about it, you can go ahead and say goodbye to our little hobby. If you think they'll stop at stony corals, think again. Next up will be softies, LPS, and fishes. Make a difference, save our hobby!

To Whomever it may concern:

To start off, a little background on myself. I graduated with an Ocean and Coastal Resources degree from Texas A&M University. I have spent 10 years in environmental consulting, during which I kept a saltwater reef tank as a hobby.

I have discussed and reviewed many examples of coastal resource conservation during my studies at A&M. I am fully aware of the fact that conservation of our oceans and their inhabitants is critical, as many of the processes that occur beyond our scope of vision in the oceans effect many global processes around the world. From underwater currents effecting climates in England to vast consumable fish populations disappearing around the world's fisheries. We know that protecting our oceans are key to keeping our environment stable and sustainable. I applaud the effort.

The regulation you aim to impose aims at the heart of many industries. That alone I would not consider to be a valid point to not pass the regulation. Just because these industries profit and are maintained by this industry does not prompt them to being saved. I do however would like to make a point that many of these industries help developing nations have a global impact on the economy, as it is their main source of exportation of a good that world markets are willing to pay for. What I see is not the problem of exporting these specific corals, but more regulation on these industries in the foreign countries that export them to the US. I find it more beneficial to regulate the collectors then to try to regulate what gets imported.

The experts lie in the people who handle and deal with these corals species daily. If this regulation passes, you'll leave it in the hands of agents who inspect these packages of corals being imported. I know I can tell the difference between an Acropora jacquelineae and an Acropora lokani, but would an agent inspecting the package know the difference? I can guarantee the exporters of corals know the difference as they will charge you more for one or the other, it's their business to be able to identify the corals so they can charge prices accordingly. This regulation only aims to put the power of identifying and approving in the hands of the least capable personnel to do it.

I agree that the industry needs to be regulated and that importation of certain corals needs to be monitored and certain species should not be collected anymore. I just see a more effective plan at aiming to regulate the collectors than to impose this regulation to have agents try to identify corals that they have no background or experience doing so.

[+OU12004]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I submitted the following response.

"I have been keeping reef tanks for nearly 10 years and I have received a large part of my coral population from fragments of other enthusiast corals. Fragging corals and spreading the diversity to multiple tanks increases the population and strengthens the survival rate of the population. Preventing the spread of specified corals, which can be difficult to identify even by educated scholars, will cause a significant reduction in the coral populations being proposed for protection.

The goal of the reef keeping community is not to collect and kill species for display. The reef keeping community spends millions of dollars a year on equipment, supplements, and lighting research all in an effort to preserve and propagate the very species the rule would ban. Please consider the consequences of prohibiting the ownership of live coral from a significant population of conservationists committed to care and wellbeing of the very species the rule resolves to protect."

In dealing with political issues, sometimes people support an issue but do not know how to express it. While a personalized letter is the best, sometimes a form letter people can personalize, allows people to express messages they may not know how to articulate themselves.

Would anyone be interested in working on a general form letter that could be used by others to express their support?

Also bringing this issue to the attention of your reps is helpful as they may not even be aware of the situation and the benefits reefing brings to their district.

[jolt]

And my contribution:

I am writing to you as a concerned reef aquarium hobbyist. I do not fully understand the details or the proposed rule, nor can i easily its future impacts if implemented. I leave that exercise to the experts, and I trust there will be a good outcome.

I would, however, like to pass along what I hope you will agree are important salient points to your development and implementation of this proposal.

First, I firmly believe that protecting the natural habitat of the reef is of utmost importance.

Second, I am aware that the aquaculture and mariculture industries for ornamental corals and fishes are making vast strides. These industries seek to accomplish propagation of ornamental species in a way that has minimal or no impact on wild populations. I see many successes here and much effort is being expended to make continual strides.

Third, there are many hobbyists in the industry who propagate ornamentals and share or sell them at minimal costs to other hobbyists. Again, this is occuring with no impact on wild populations of these ornamentals.

I hope that that the rule and its implementation take these two facts into consideration and result in a thoughtful outcome that cooperates with mariculture, aquaculture, and hobbyist ornamental breeding efforts while at the same time effectively controlling the impact of wild collection on the reefs. Preserving these captive bred corals will not only continue to allow these industries to thrive, it may in the long run also provide a bank of species which could be available for conservation, scientific, and repopulation efforts.

[FarmerTy]

Hopefully others are still planning to comment on this proposed regulation? No joke here guys, end of our hobby if things continue in this direction.

[Timfish]

Here's the link for my comment http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158-0006 You can also post pictures to go along with comments. I attached a picture of Euphyllia paradivisia I've been growing since the mid '90s. It did take over 2 weeks from when I submitted my comment for it to be cleared and posted.

[ceastman]

Here is what I sent in for comments on the regulations.gov website:

I am a saltwater hobbyist starting about 10 years ago. I went on hiatus from the hobby for about 9 years when my children were born but now they are old enough to appreciate the ocean and all its inhabitants. I have been teaching them about water chemistry, electronics, plumbing, fish and coral husbandry.

Your proposed regulations in no way addresses your stated primary threats that you identified as including ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification. You listed collection and trade as only a medium to low threat. If the primary threats to the corals are “ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification” then regulations should be put in place to reduce these threats.

As previously stated in other comments, custom officials are not going to be able to differentiate between the various corals species and will just start banning all coral imports “just to be safe”. This will have a very profound and negative impact on so many aspects of the saltwater industry, hobby and academic research.

I found a recent article about scientists repopulating corals reefs: instead of trying to regulate something that has a minor impact on the health of our global coral population those resources should be directed to scientists like this to help heal our global coral populations.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scientists-try-regrow-dying-coral-reef-25-times-faster-nature/

Sincerely,
Concerned saltwater hobbyist
Texas
USA