Vieques Island Bombings. Coral-List Discussion

This message was posted to the Coral List Server by Phil Dustan. The discussion it started is quite interesting, and ongoing. All of the messages posted thus far concerning the Vieques Island bombing issue are below. This page will be updated as more messages are posted. Many of the writers included a previous posting in their message. For simplicity, the included messages have been replaced by a link to the previous message that was quoted. If you follow that link, moving back in your browser should bring you back to your original position. This should continue to work even if you download the document to your machine. If you have any difficulties navigating this document, send a message to the CHAMP WebMaster.

From: Phillip Dustan [pdustan@zeus.cofc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 5:16 PM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Cc: jhsterne@verner.com
Subject: Vieques letter to President Clinton - Please sign on
Dear Colleagues,

I'd like to thank all of you who contributed to my knowledge of Vieques Island two weeks ago. I wanted to learn more about the island as I was going to the US Coral Reef Task Force Meetings in St. Croix and knew it would be an issue at the meeting. The more I found out, the more I came to the realization that the ecology of Vieques is being harmed and perhaps it is time to do something about it. Regardless of your feelings about the politics of Vieques, It seems to me that it is important to stop the bombing ASAP.

Jay Sterne, colleague of mine, works for the law firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand in Washington D.C. The firm works on behalf of the Government of Puerto Rico which is opposed to the continued bombing of Vieques Island. Jay is collecting signatures for the following letter to President Clinton. If you would like to be a signatory on this letter, please email your name and affiliation to him at jhsterne@verner.com. Since this issue involves much more than coral reefs (ie. manatees, sea turtles, endemic plant species, birds, and many other groups), please feel free to post this message on any list you feel may be appropriate for the conservation of the island and its surrounding waters.

Sincerely,

Phil Dustan

******************************************************************************
DRAFT
November __, 1999

President William J. Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The undersigned members of the scientific community and organizations are writing to urge you to exercise your authority to permanently halt all live fire military exercises and bombing activities in the vicinity of the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Vieques is home to some of the most extraordinary ecosystems on the planet, including three of the world's seven surviving bioluminescent bays and some of the healthiest and most diverse coral reefs found in U.S. Carribean territorial waters. The island also provides important habitat for numerous species protected under the Endangered Species Act including manatees, brown pelicans, and green, hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles, as well as several endangered plants. The Navy's nearly year-round use of Vieques for an unparalleled level of bombing has already resulted in significant harm to the Island's fragile marine and terrestrial ecology. Further, we believe further damage must be avoided.

A preliminary study of the Navy's impact on the reefs has confirmed damage from direct hits, damage from shock waves caused by ordnance landing in nearby waters, and damage from unexploded ordnance shifted by wave action. Despite having entered into a binding 1983 Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Puerto Rico in which it agreed to stop targeting and shelling offshore coral reefs, the Navy has continued these practices and caused further destruction. Today, large amounts of unexploded ordnance lie on the coral reefs of Vieques. The Navy simply has failed to undertake any meaningful clean-up efforts, or any other steps to stop further degradation of these coral reefs, let alone measures to enhance their protection.

The harm to Vieques's coral reefs caused by the Navy's activities is clearly inconsistent with your Executive Order 13089 which seeks to enhance federal protection of coral reefs and specifically requires all federal agencies:

"to the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems."

The Navy's actions clearly violate the letter and spirit of your directive.

The Navy continues to violate the Endangered Species Act, which requires federal agencies to:

"ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat."

The Navy has failed to perform consultations with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required pursuant to § 7 of the Endangered Species Act, to determine the impact of its actions on endangered or threatened species, including manatees, sea turtles, and brown pelicans.

In addition to its disregard for the Endangered Species Act, the Navy continues to violate the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which establish protective standards for water quality and soil contamination, respectively. It has been almost twenty years since the Navy completed its only Environmental Impact Statement on its Vieques operations. The report concluded that "potentially productive" portions of the island had been converted into "wasteland" by its aerial attacks. Finally, there are numerous toxic waste dumps and contamination sites scattered around Vieques, contributing to the release of depleted uranium, cyanide compounds, napalm, RDX, toulene and other hazardous substances into the island's ecosystems.

It is unfortunate that the U.S. Navy has consistently disregarded federal environmental protection mandates on Vieques, but it is all the more reason to make the current cessation of its destructive activities permanent. It is also imperative that the Navy begins the crucial task of remediating the considerable contamination it has caused throughout the island. The undersigned members of the scientific community and organizations call on you to stop the Navy from resuming live fire exercises on Vieques, and to authorize and direct the Navy to develop strategy for rehabilitation and clean-up activities on the Island.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Dustan
Department of Biology and Science Adivsor to
College of Charleston The Cousteau Society
Charleston SC 29424
pdustan@zeus.cofc.edu
www.cofc.edu/~coral
(843) 953-8086
(843)953-5453 Fax

From: CORALations [corals@caribe.net]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 7:03 AM
To: eco-isla; Turtle Listers; Coral-List
Subject: Re: PLEASE ACT NOW

As a marine conservation organization based in Puerto Rico, we ask that you sign on to the following letter to President Clinton asking that he STOP live fire target practice on the island of Vieques.

At the recent coral reef executive task force meeting we were surprised that many people did not know the following:

-The U.S. Navy targets coral reefs in violation of the 1983 Memorandum of Understanding with the local government.

-The people of Vieques have been outspokenly opposed to Navy use of the island for live fire target practice for the last 60 years. Last spring a civilian guard named David Sanes was killed, and four others injured when a pilot accidentally dropped bombs which missed the target area. This tragedy has united the people of Puerto Rico who are now asking that the Navy not resume live fire practice on the island.

-U.S. Navy makes large amounts of money leasing the island of Vieques to foreign powers for live fire target practice. Last year, the Navy's web site advertised the island of Vieques as follows:

"One stop shopping - capability of excellence in all warfare areas with the right vision of the future...yields high return on investment."

-With the exception of the target area, this biologically diverse island supports some of the healthiest coral reef with greatest percentage coral coverage remaining in U.S. Caribbean waters. Not unexpectedly, coral coverage and health improves as one moves away from the target area. There are a number of endangered species in the area of impact including seasonal whale populations and Giant Leatherbacks who instinctively return to nest on Navy beaches. We have seen one photo of a Leatherback washed ashore, spilling eggs, bleeding from mouth consistent head trauma from underwater shock. Vieques is also home and provides nesting habitat for many species of endangered sea birds

-The decision to resume live fire target practice is now in the hands of President Clinton. Navy contends that live fire target practice on Vieques is an absolute necessity. They say this is an issue of National Security. They said the same thing when the people of Puerto Rico asked them to cease the live fire target practice on the municipal island of Culebra 20 years ago. Today, unexploded ordnance litters coral reefs in Culebra, which has a population approaching 5,000, and other popular dive destinations in Puerto Rico including the uninhabited islands of Desecheo and Mona.

-We hope that as experts in coral reef education, management and conservation, you will sign on this letter to the President to aid in his decision. The ecosystem being destroyed is of global importance and we no longer have the "luxury," if we ever had, of targeting biologically diverse tropical ecosystem. Please sign on the letter below if you haven't already, and make a quick call to the White House TODAY. The President will most likely make his final decision within the next two days.

PLEASE SIGN ON LETTER BELOW TODAY FOLLOWING COMMENTS FROM PHIL DUSTAN OF COUSTEAU SOCIETY.

White House Comment Line Phone: 202-456-1111
White House Fax Line 202-456-2461
Clinton's e-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
Gore's e-mail: vice-president@whitehouse.gov
White House Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500

Note: The writer at CORALations had Dustan's letter in his original message posted after his text. Phil Dustan's message is just above.

I seem to remember work some years ago reported in one of the International Coral Reef Symposiums that looked at the reefs of Vieques, and found that they were in better shape than the reefs of Puerto Rico. The bombing had done surprisingly little damage to the reefs, and it had kept people out of the area, so they hadn't destroyed the reefs as on Puerto Rico.

In Hawaii it has been said that the military are unwittingly one of the islands' biggest conservation agencies, since the islands are dotted with disused military bases where people cannot buy land and build resorts, etc.

Maybe it would be ideal to get the Navy to stop bombing and clean up everything, but leave the live ordinance lying around to keep people out. If you let people populate the Vieques as dense as the rest of Puerto Rico and don't have very effective controls of sediment runoff, fishing, etc, the reefs may be worse off than with the military there. What will replace the military? -Doug

Douglas Fenner, Ph.D.
Coral Biodiversity/Taxonomist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB No 3
Townsville MC
Queensland 4810
Australia
phone 07 4753 4334
e-mail: d.fenner@aims.gov.au
web: http://www.aims.gov.au

Several on the list have visited or worked at Johnston Atoll, site of a facility for the disposal of chemical weapons and a place with a history of environmental insults. The reef is mostly in very beautiful condition due to the restrictions on access and use, and is now within a National Wildlife Sanctuary.

Les Kaufman
Boston University Marine Pogram
lesk@bio.bu.edu
617-353-5560 office
617-353-6965 lab
617-353-6340 fax

Although NAVY's restrictions to the bombing areas in Vieques could impede people to frequently fish or dive there, damage has already being performed by the continous bombings. These reefs have been under the attack of the NAVY's bombs for more than 40 years in the area. Also, NAVY's practices in Vieques are with live bombs. This aggravates the situation since it is well known the damage that these can cause to any marine ecosystem. It is not only the destruction of the reefs, but also all the life that accompanies it. The fact is that since it is a restricted area, scientists can't enter there to perform studies regarding the health of these ecosystems.

Best regards,
Juan L. Torres, MS
UPR-Dept. of Marine Sciences

Note: Torres had Fenner's whole message in his original message. Doug Fenner's is already displayed above.

From: Edwin Hernandez-Delgado [coral_giac@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 10:55 PM
To: d.fenner@aims.gov.au; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov; eco-isla@earthsystems.org
Subject: Re: Could bombing benefit Vieques reefs?

This is in response to the comments of Dr. Doug Fenner (AIMS) regarding the destruction of the coral reefs of Vieques Island (Puerto Rico) caused by the bombing activities carried out by the U.S. NAVY and other NATO countries. Dr. Fenner seems to defend the idea that it's better to keep the U.S. Navy blowing out our coral reefs than to have Puerto Ricans developing Vieques island. That view was also supported by Les Kaufman.

I agree with the idea that we can not allow Vieques to become another San Juan(P.R.) or another St. Thomas (USVI), in terms of the model of touristic development. As a matter of fact, the local Vieques NGO, Comite Pro Rescate y Desarrollo de Vieques (Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques) has already prepared an alternative sutainable development plan for a Vieques Island free of the U.S. Navy. But, I completely disagree with Fenner's point of view of keeping the U.S. NAVY in Vieques.

Vieques Island is part of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and has a permanent population of nearly 10,000 residents. It is one of the most important touristic destinations in the entire Caribbean. But at the same time, it has been used as a target ground since 1941 by the U.S. Navy and other NATO countries. 58 years of bombing!!! Bombing areas are located just 9 miles upwind of Isabel Segunda, the Viques downtown area. Sometimes, U.S. Navy pilots have missed targets by up to 10 miles, dropping off bombs just 1 mile off downtown Isabel Segunda!

Residents of Vieques Island also suffer a 26% incidence of cancer, which is way higher than the average for the main island of Puerto Rico. This means that almost one of every three viequenses will die from cancer!!!!! Can anybody has an explanation for that?

Furthermore, all of the most weird type of weapons developed by the U.S. Navy have been tested in Vieques, including napalm, all kinds of missiles and bullets with uranium casings!!!!! And what about biological weapons???? The U.S. Navy keeps residuals of uranium everywhere around the target areas!!! And there is also a lagoon which has been used as a dump-site of toxic wastes. It has been known for more than two decades that it is severely polluted (Sanchez, 1978). Has anybody ever questioned if toxic pollutants are leaching into the coral reefs and segrass beds in the area? Are edible species incorporating toxics? Is this related in any way to the high cancer rate in Vieques? That lagoon became flooded by the sea during the 2-m storm tide and 6-m waves of Hurricane Lenny last Wednesday.

The U.S. Navy also smashes turtle nesting beaches by its amphibious vehicles. What about all conservation agencies?

This is not only a matter of corals and fish, it's politics! And, furthermore, it's about people!!! The U.S. Navy is slowly killing Viequenses and just killed a civilian on April 19, 1999 because one of their pilots missed the target (again) with a live bomb. Although a Puerto Rican was blown out and split in two pieces by the U.S. Navy, nobody is in jail yet!

Fenner cited (without mentioning them) the studies of Antonius (1982) published in the Proc. 4th. Coral Reef Symp. Manila (1981), and probably those of Antonius and Dodge (1982), which concluded that hurricanes are more damaging to coral reefs than bombing activities. These studies focused only on shallow reef zones (reef front and backreefs), which by the time of the studies were just smashed by Hurricanes David and Frederick (1979), so their conclusions were obviously biased. Moreover, these studies were requested by the own U.S. Navy.

However, independent studies carried out by Rogers et al. (1978) and Carrera-Rodriguez (1978) concluded that there was: 1) severe destruction coral reef frameworks within the maneuver areas; 2) craters were abundant; 3) severe pulverization and fragmentation of coral heads; 4) damage by sedimentation caused by blasting; 5) impacts from shock waves; 6) toxic pollution from chemicals carried out in bombs (Lai, 1978); and 7) significant solid waste disposal in the coral reefs, including, bomb fragments, flare casings, shells, bullets, parachutes, and other military stuff.

In addition, according to Cintron (1980) and Vicente (1980), there was also severe damage to seagrass beds in the area due to bombing and by being smashed by amphibious vehicles. Some of my studies in Vieques (Hernandez-Delgado, 1994; 1996; Chapter 2, 3 PhD Dissertation) have shown that Vieques supports coral cover values ranging from about 5% in shallow flat eolianite reefs, to about 45% in deeper reefs. It has been estimated, however, that shelf edge coral reefs support coral cover values of approximately 50-90%. These supports one of the most important reef-based fisheries of the region. So, coral reefs outside of maneuver areas are still in preety good shape. But fringing reefs along the northern Vieques shoreline are suffering the chronic effects of touristic and housing development (Hernandez-Delgado, 1994, 1996, 1997), including the construction of a private resort. This is mostly caused by sedimentation and turbidity. But bombing areas also suffer from severe run-off, which not only carry out sediments to the coastal waters, but possibly toxic and radioactive wastes.

Regarding what is the condition of cratered reefs, there is no actual information from Vieques. The U.S. Navy has never allowed independent scientists to study the area, as pointed out by Juan Torres, from UPR-Dept. Marine Sciences. Even, our Coral Reef Research Group tried to obtain a permit to study that area, which recieved no answer.

But, I've been able to document in some way the status of former target coral reefs of Culebra Island. Culebra is located 22 km north of Vieques, and 27 km off eastern Puerto Rico, and supports a population of about 2,500 citizens. It was invaded in 1901 by the U.S. Navy and kept bombing the Culebra arhipelago until 1975.

In summary, there is a striking difference in the coral reef epibenthic and fish assemblages, when cratered reefs are compared to control sites.

*There is coral recruitment within cratered areas, but the bottom was so much demolished that it is highly unstable and only high-recruiting species adapted to disturbance are common (i.e., Siderastrea radians, Porites spp., Millepora spp.).

There is no net recovery of coral reefs that were severely demolished by bombing activities more than 25 years ago. This suggests that it will take several human generations to naturally recover these areas, if that can occur.

Fish communities are also severely affected more thatn 25 years ago because of the lack of reef recovery, and because of the loss of the natural habitat heterogeneity. Bombs are also known to produce massive fish kills (IDEA, 1970).

In synthesis, I agree with Fenner's view that Vieques Island coral reefs must be protected from development, BUT SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED to Puerto Ricans or viequenses. THIS IS AN IMPERIALISTIC APPROACH TO CORAL REEF CONSERVATIONS AND WE, AS PUERTO RICANS, WON'T ACCEPT THAT.

There are several basic conditions that must be met by the U.S. Navy before leaving: 1) Give back ALL lands to Puerto Ricans; 2) clean all toxic wastes; 3) remove all ordnance; 4) restore polluted areas, target areas, and destroyed coral reefs and seagrass beds; and 5) provide for the sustainable development of Vieques.

My recommendations regarding coral reef conservation in Vieques are: 1) carry out a general assessment of coral reefs and associated habitats within and outside of the target areas; 2) establish permanent monitoring stations; 3) evaluate the possibility of restoring damaged reefs and segrass bed areas; 4) remove all unexploded ordnance; 5) evaluate the status of fish communities in order to identify priority areas for conservation through the designation as a Marine Fishery Reserve. A possible network of MFRs could be an excellent approach to restore overfished stocks outside of the target areas.

Fenner's intention of protecting coral reefs is excellent. But Puerto Ricans, specially viequenses and culebrenses, are tired of the imperialistic approach to conservation issues. We, as scientists, need to deal with the reality that we are not dealing only with fish and coral, it's about people!!!!!!! And there are a complex array of sociological and political-historical issues that must be considered when conservation approaches are proposed. Anything must be discussed with the people of Vieques first.

Fenner's last question was who will replace the Navy? It would have been easier to recommend why don't the Australian government recieves our bombs. They have plenty of reefs to destroy. Why don't they set a target ground 9 miles off Townsville, just as in Vieques? I agree with Fenner that we should not allow weird developers to destroy what Viequenses have been trying to rescue for 58 years. But to replace the Navy with the Navy itself? Please!!!!!!!!

Edwin A. Hernandez-Delgado, M.Sc., Ph.D.C.
Research Associate
University of Puerto Rico
Department of Biology
Coral Reef Research Group
P.O. Box 23360
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931-3360
coral_giac@hotmail.com

Note: Edwin. Hernandez-Delgado had Doug Fenner's whole message in his original message. Doug Fenner's is already displayed above.

From: William Allison [wallison@dhivehinet.net.mv]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 12:05 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: ReefBomb: A Coral Reef Protection Program(me)

Doug Fenner's suggestion to leave live ordinance lying about has the merit of being economical but the policy has increased rather than decreased site usage in some locations. Instead, controlled charge placement and magnitude would more effectively discourage site use, control collateral damage, and facilitate scientific interpretation of results.

Additional issues to be explored for which some of the experiments have been conducted include: Does nuclear or conventional weapons testing afford the better ecosystem protection? Does the approach work in other ecosystems? &c.

At one level this is a serious discussion about a real issue. At another level a discussion about bombing reefs to protect them from people seems surreal.

Bill

William (Bill) Allison
Ma. Maadheli Majeedhee Magu
Male 20-03
MALDIVES
Tel: (960) 32 9667
Fax: (960) 32 6884
email: wallison@dhivehinet.net.mv

From: Bob Endreson [bob@westpacfisheries.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 11:58 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Fw: Could bombing benefit Vieques reefs?

Why not consider the same plan for Vieques Island as Kahoolawe here in Hawaii. The Navy returned it to the State and created a Marine Protected Area. No fishing, no development just an education center and a living lab.

Bob Endreson

Note: Endreson had Hernandez-Delgado's message in his original message. Hernandez-Delgado's is already displayed above.

From: Doug Fenner [d.fenner@aims.gov.au]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 2:11 PM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: reef bombing

Coralisters,

I would like to thank those who have given us more of the facts about the situation on the reefs of Vieques & Cuelebra off Puerto Rico. The future of the Navy and land use there will not only impact reefs, but many people as well. And people have a right to control their own destiny and live free of bombs that miss their targets, and militaries that avoid responsibilities.

It seemed to me that we were being asked to support the removal of the Navy, without knowing what was going to replace them, and without factual basis to support what appeared to be an obvious fact, that bombing damages reefs. I was saying, 'wait a minute, could it be a bit more complicated?'.

I wouldn't for a minute advocate bombing reefs to conserve them. I would fully support a cessation of bombing, strafing, polluting lands and waters (Activities which the military of the US and many other nations have carried on in a variety of other locations, and which will cost billions to clean up- to some extent legacies of the cold war and a lack of concern for the environment.). Also those who made the pollution cleaning it up.

I suggested leaving the live ordinance around, not continued bombing. My concern is that dense human populations, whether for tourism development, rural agriculture, or the building of towns and cities, tends to have very detrimental effects on coral reefs. Effects that may even be worse than the military. No one doubts that corals are damaged in bomb craters, or in the tracks of landing vehicles. But in between the bombs and tracks, the corals may be in very good shape (and the craters and tracks may cover only part of the reef). As has been pointed out, we will not know until the military allows independent investigators in, or the military leaves. (and it would be good to remove live ordinance if the normal destructive effects of dense human populations are avoided)

Someone has suggested that Bikini and Enewetok atolls may have some of the most pristine reefs in the world at this point. Simply because they have been uninhabited since the 50's when the US tested atomic bombs there. It does not follow that we should encourage the military to bomb other coral reefs. But it does call into question whether bombing is more damaging to coral reefs over the long term, or large human populations and their activities. And a military reservation without any activities may preserve reefs very well indeed.

I suggest that the planning for uses after the military leaves is crucial. The number of people allowed into the area, how much construction will be allowed, whether sediment runoff from construction will be trapped on land, whether sewage will be treated and piped far out beyond the reefs, whether fishing will be allowed uncontrolled, whether nutrients will be running off of the land, whether people will be upstream or downstream of the reefs- these matters (and others) may be critical. I'd guess that the reefs of Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii before the sewage outfalls were diverted, or Jamaican north shore reefs since 1980 with massive over fishing and nutrient runoff are in worse shape than the Vieques reef between the bomb craters. (I may be wrong) Of course, with massive bleaching due to El Nino/Global warming, it may all be a moot question in a couple decades anyhow. Where did I park my gas-guzzeler?

Just a note- my views have nothing to do with AIMS, I'm a US Citizen, and there is indeed a bombing range in the ocean not far off of Townsville, Australia, where the Royal Australian Air Force practices, I am told. -Doug

Douglas Fenner, Ph.D.
Coral Biodiversity/Taxonomist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB No 3
Townsville MC Queensland 4810
Australia phone 07 4753 4334
e-mail: d.fenner@aims.gov.au
web: http://www.aims.gov.au

From: arnfried.antonius@univie.ac.at
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 10:16 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Vieques reef bombing

Hello coraleros,

long ago it has been shown that the damage of Navy bombings on reefs is negligible when compared to naturally occurring reef destruction. Reference:

Antonius, A. & Weiner, A.. 1982. Coral Reefs under Fire. P.S.Z.N.I: Marine Ecology, 3 (3): 255-277.

Would be interesting to find out whether the situation is still the same (or at least similar) today.

Best regards, Arnfried

---------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Arnfried J. ANTONIUS        phone: 0043-1-31336-9734
Institute of Palaeontology             fax: 0043-1-31336-784
University of Vienna
Geozentrum
Althanstr. 14
A-1090 WIEN                             e-mail: arnfried.antonius@univie.ac.at
Austria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Les Kaufman [lesk@bio.bu.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:12 AM
To: Doug Fenner
Cc: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: reef bombing

Doug Fenner's comments obviously reflect the voice of reason, but we still need a consistent policy of "no net loss" for coral reefs to local disturbance, just as we (more or less) have for wetlands in the US. The military reserves that happen to include coral reefs are an irreplaceable resource that it is now time to safeguard. The military is already doing quite a bit to this end. The problem arises when military facilities are decomissioned. Who bears responsibility for problems that emerge after final clean-up? Shouldn't all coral reef areas under military stewardship automatically become national wildlife refuges? We're not talking about that much area in total. Where a native people is involved, they too must be taken into consideration, for they are being denied the opportunities for economic development that others take for granted, or for greed.

Les Kaufman
Boston University Marine Program
Department of Biology
5 Cummington Street
Boston, MA 02215
lesk@bio.bu.edu
617-353-5560 office
617-353-6965 lab
617-353-6340 fax

From: Maggie Sommer [msommer@oce.orst.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 12:03 PM
To: Les Kaufman
Cc: Doug Fenner; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: reef bombing

I concur with Les Kaufman's point that coral reefs in areas under military control may be likely to be in relatively good condition (excepting, of course, the occasional crater) and should be priority candidates for reserve status. A number of points came to mind as I considered the issue: IF the relevant parties are in agreement that reserves are a necessary means of preservation, then I suggest that decommissioned military zones may have a relatively low impact on local {fishing} populations, as these people must have already altered their fishing practices to avoid the off-limits region; whereas the declaration of a new area as a reserve would be a burden in the form of further changes. It also could be the case in some areas that where there has been limited human impact on a reef system, it already harbors large, fecund populations of harvestable species, which would {does already?} serve to perform one of the goals of a marine protected area--to enhance fisheries in neighboring, exploited waters.

On the other hand, perhaps it would be more beneficial to people and reef to allow fishing in the previously, de facto, protected area; and to set aside a more 'degraded' section of reef for recovery, as in a rotating scheme. Short-term gain for fishers in terms of access to new areas/fish; potential long-term gain from recovery (from fishing pressure, at least; unless matters such as sediment/nudrient runoff etc. are addressed in conjunction with reserve designation) of previously impacted zones.

And now back to the other side of the fence for one last point--are we confident in the military's ability to remove all live ordnance from a marine practice area? There certainly has been a lot of news coverage recently on the huge number of unexploded bombs of all shapes and sizes, land mines, etc. throughout the world (Laos in particular was the subject of a NPR story last week). As [one hopes] people using a marine environment for resource extraction or recreation will have less contact with the bottom and thus any live munitions overlooked by military clean-up crews than would farmers in a mined or bomb-strewn region, it should be less of a threat than on land. But is it worth the risk of even one fisherman getting blown to bits? I suppose after all these twists I come out in favor of recommending that demilitarized reef areas be made reserves.

And one question--I don't see how a "no net loss" policy similar to the wetlands practices is feasible in coral reef systems: it is my understanding (but I may be wrong on any of these points) that no net loss is achieved by "creating" wetlands roughly equivalent in size and function to ones destroyed during development. I suspect this is done by grading with heavy equipment, then planting specimens of appropriate plant varieties which have been grown in a lab/nursery until they are already fairly large and hardy, and then hoping that if they build it, the insects, birds, amphibians etc. will come. It seems to me that this process would be much more difficult to accomplish with a reef, due to much slower growth of corals and difficulty with culture and transportation (large bommie translocation discussion notwithstanding, since the point of 'no net loss' would be to replace damaged/destroyed reef with "new" reef, not just relocated corals etc.).

I hope Mr. Kaufman will forgive me if I have misunderstood his comments, and I certainly invite any corrrections to my assumptions, or further comments.

Maggie Sommer
M.S. student
Marine Resource Management Program
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon

Note: Sommer had Kaufman's whole message in her original message. Kaufman's message appears above.

From: Jose Manuel Lopez-Diaz [jo_lopez@rumac.uprm.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 3:30 PM
To: arnfried.antonius@univie.ac.at; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Vieques reef bombing

It is high time to revisit this question by independent investigators. Vieques reefs offer a unique opportunity. Massive destruction, radioactive and chemical contamination will be evidenced. To extrapolate the specific "findings" of Antonius and Weiner (1982) that "Navy bombings on reefs is negligible" is a serious mistake. Who paid for that study anyway?

JMLopez

Note: Lopez had Antonius's message in his original message. Antonius's message appears above.

From: JSobel@DCCMC.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 2:13 PM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Cc: Company@DCCMC.ORG
Subject: Vieques Island: Protection should be comprehensive!

The coral reef list-server has once again provided an excellent, neutral forum for sharing many perspectives and providing much useful information regarding the controversial and emotional issues facing Vieques Island's coral reefs and military use of this important area. The dialogue to date has been very instructive and informative to me and I would like to thank the List-server providers and all of those who have shared their perspectives on Vieques. Here is one more:

As ecosystem director for the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), I was approached both through the list-server and directly by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the law firm representing them, local NGO's from Puerto Rico, and coral reef scientists with requests to sign onto a group letter emphasizing the need to stop the bombing and get the military out of Vieques due to its impact on coral reefs. I also had the privilege of attending the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force meeting in St. Croix and hearing several excellent presentations on Vieques and discussing this with presenters and attendees familiar with Vieques.

CMC elected not to sign onto the group letter that was circulated due to its sole focus on the bombing issue and our belief that any solution to protecting Vieques' coral reefs would have to be more comprehensive and long-term. Instead, we sent our own letter (see below) together with EDF that supported an end to the bombing and other military activities impacting the island's coral reefs and other natural resources, but stressing that a more comprehensive solution is essential, especially if the military pulls out. Our belief is that such a solution will need to include protected areas on land and in the water and stringent conservation measures applicable to those areas that are developed. Designation of a National Wildlife Refuge, as was done for Culebra and other former military lands, may be a piece of this solution. There are other approaches worth considering and we don't believe a comprehensive solution need be "Imperialistic", but must address issues other than bombing and military activities and provide concrete protection with regard to other threats. The list-server dialogue has strengthened my belief that the more comprehensive approach called for in our letter is absolutely critical.

Simply promoting "sustainable development", without defining what this means will likely not protect Vieques reefs, other natural resources, or the human community on Vieques for that matter. Edwin Hernandez-Delgado indicated in his email that a local Vieques NGO, Comite Pro Rescate y Desarrollo de Vieques, has prepared an altenative sustainable development plan for a Vieques Island free of the Navy. We would like to see this plan posted or at least have information on how to obtain it provided. In our conversations with those who were asking us to sign the group letter, those representing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and others voiced support for more comprehensive protection, but were unwilling to state or commit to a written position other than calling for an immediate end to the bombing and withdrawal of the military. This position concerns us, in that, if the military does withdraw, development pressures similar to those that occurred elsewhere in Puerto Rico and beyond may overwhelm good intentions with respect to Vieques and its local community, unless there is already a comprehensive protection plan in place for its coral reefs and other natural resources. The time to provide such protection is prior to any decision on a military pull-out. The letter we sent follows:

November 16, 1999

President William J. Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

On behalf of the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), we are writing to urge you to exercise all of your relevant authorities to permanently protect the coral reefs and associated tropical marine and coastal ecosystems on and surrounding the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. We encourage you to find a resolution to current Department of Defense (DOD) activities that may threaten these systems and the fish and wildlife that depend on them, and a long-term solution that would provide comprehensive protection for these vital natural resources. In particular, we ask that you (1) extend the current moratorium and secure a permanent ban on all live fire military exercises and bombing activities that threaten natural resources in the vicinity of Vieques; and (2) develop and implement a strategy to fully and permanently protect the coral reef and related ecosystems on and near Vieques, including development of a national wildlife refuge, national park, or other appropriate protected area(s).

Vieques is home to some of the most extraordinary ecosystems on the planet, including three of the world’s seven surviving bioluminescent bays and some of the healthiest and most diverse coral reefs found in U.S. Carribean territorial waters. The Island also provides important habitat for numerous species protected under the Endangered Species Act including manatees, brown pelicans, and green, hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles, as well as several endangered plants. While naval bombing and use of Vieques has resulted in some significant harm to the Island’s fragile marine and terrestrial ecology and raised legitimate concerns among the island’s population, the federal holdings on the island have also forestalled other potentially harmful development and limited natural resource extraction that may pose an equal or greater long-term threat to the island’s natural resources. Any long-term strategy to protect Vieques’ natural resources must include not only a cessation of bombing, but also a comprehensive approach that protects these sensitive systems from coastal development and natural resource extraction.

Your Executive Order 13089 on Coral Reef Protection sets very high standards for Federal agencies and the Nation to both prevent degradation and enhance protection for coral reef ecosystems. Its stated policy requires all Federal agencies to:

(1) “utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems”

(2) “ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems.”

With regard to Vieques, continued live bombing of the island’s coral reef ecosystems appears clearly inconsistent with the no-degradation standard of the Executive Order and to require implementation of an extended moratorium and permanent prohibition. However, addressing only the bombing issue would fall far short of the Executive Order’s stated policy regarding the protection and enhancement of coral reef ecosystems. DOD and all federal agencies are also required to use their programs and authorities to protect such systems. Given the relatively healthy condition and importance of Vieques’ coral reef ecosystems, the policy requires that all agencies maintain and enhance that level of protection. In our view, cessation of bombing must be combined with more comprehensive protection to fulfill the letter and spirit of the Executive Order. Development and implementation of a national wildlife refuge or similar protective regime would be one way of accomplishing this.

Jack Sobel, Ecosystem Director Doug Rader, Senior Scientist
Center for Marine Conservation Environmental Defense Fund

<<ViequesLetter.rtf>>
*********************************
Jack Sobel, Director
Ecosystem Program
Center for Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales St. NW, Suite #600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 429-5609
Fax: (202) 872-0619
Email: jsobel@dccmc.org
*********************************

From: Potter at Island Resources [bpotter@irf.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 1:36 PM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Cc: JSobel@DCCMC.ORG; San Andres Research Mailing List; Edward L. Towle, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: Vieques Island: Protection should be comprehensive!

Jack Sobel and Doug Rader have presented an excellent statement of the need for US protection of the natural coastal and marine resources on the Navy gunnery ranges on Vieques, especially the reef communities.

Their message, however, ignores two important issues:
1) The political issue of Puerto Rican "sovereignty" over "national" assets (a debatable concept, but one which needs to be acknowledged at some level to secure commitment to a resolution of the continuing conflict over the bombing);
2) The economic issue of the need for ANY long-term resolution to address SUSTAINABLE USE of the natural resources of Vieques and adjacent waters to generate acceptable income for [at least] the people of Vieques. Given the intensity of resource use in the Caribbean, and the high rate of poverty in Puerto Rico, a resolution which ignores income generating needs is failure prone. (I'm not sure of the income levels of families in Vieques, but cutting back on Navy use of the island would obviously reduce employment and other business opportunities).

I think the implications would be for low intensity tourism with a large component of diving activities and other marine and tourist services, but that's at the END of a long process of exploration of alternatives and development of those elements.

Much as I recognize the need to protect the reefs of Vieques, I would oppose any settlement which fenced off the resources with no provision for income generating activities for [at least] local residents. The Sobel/Rader letter might lead to the unfortunate conclusion that local inhabitants are mostly significant as "threats" to the natural resources of the area.

bruce potter for himself .....

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

Note: Potter had Sobel's message in his original message. Sobel's message appears above.

From: DeeVon Quirolo [deevon@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 7:37 PM
To: JSobel@DCCMC.ORG
Cc: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov; Company@DCCMC.ORG
Subject: Re: Vieques Island: Protection should be comprehensive!

The Federal Government is not capable of saving coral reefs. This has been proven in the Florida Keys where the coral has died under the watch of the FKNMS and all of the National NGO's that are clueless as to the real situation regarding coral and it's demise. CQ of Reef Relief

Note: Quirolo of Reef Relief had Sobel's message in his original message. Sobel's message appears above.

From: Gene Shinn [gene@fearless.er.usgs.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:59 AM
To: coral-list-digest@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Vieques reefs

Re: Doug Fenners comments. I too remember the report that said the reefs at Vieques were in better shape (and there were more fish) than elsewhere in Puerto Rico. It concluded that the reason was that fisherman can't get in. The report came to mind when I first read that the leader of the movement to get the Navy out is the head of the Fishermans Association. Gene

"If we lose our capacity to be wrong, we are not doing the business of science" Charles L. Drake
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
Gene Shinn                                        | email eshinn@usgs.gov
USGS Center for Coastal Geology     | http://coastal.er.usgs.gov
600 4th St. South                               | voice (727) 803-8747 x3030
St.Petersburg, FL 33701                    | fax (727) 803-2032
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------

From: JSobel@DCCMC.ORG
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 12:58 PM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Cc: paulj488@aol.com; Doug_Rader@edf.org
Subject: RE: Vieques Island Letter: Multiple Comments from REEF RELIEF

My first temptation was not to respond to a series of comments posted by either Craig Quirilo or Devon Quirilo or both of REEF RELIEF, on the Coral-list server, with regard to a letter sent by the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) on Vieques Island. However, having now received five versions of rambling, incoherent, and seemingly irrelevant comments from them that were posted to the Coral-list server, I think a few clarifying remarks are in order:

(1)The letter sent by us did not propose a marine sanctuary nor pre-judge what mechanism might be best to protect the reefs and other resources surrounding Vieques, but emphasized the need to stop all bombing impacting Vieques' reefs and provide more comprehensive protection than simply an end to the bombing, especially if the Navy were to pull out. Based on my understanding of REEF RELIEF's own mission and policies, they would agree that the bombing should be stopped and that other protection should also be afforded.

(2)We would agree that neither the federal government nor any form of government can provide the whole answer to coral reef protection on its own in Vieques or elsewhere, but federal and other forms of government can and should play a role in and afford protection for coral reefs. An active well-informed public is essential for this to happen, which is part of the reason we exist. We assume REEF RELIEF would agree with this as well, presumably its why they exist.

(3)So what was REEF RELIEF really tring to say? I confess that I don't know. Their two recurring themes seem to be that (A) National NGOs don't have a clue about the problems facing coral reefs, only REEF RELIEF does; and (B) the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has been responsible for the death of the Florida Keys Reef Tract, despite being around for only a few years, and its creation proves that government can't do anything to prevent reef destruction. If this was REEF RELIEF's message, we clearly disagree with them on both themes.

(4)We believe that the threats facing the Florida Reef Tract and many other Caribbean reefs, potentially including Vieques, are multiple, long-term, and synergistic, and will require similarly comprehensive solutions. Although we have not always been satisfied with the level of protection afforded by the FKNMS, we believe it is an essential tool for the protection and recovery of the Florida Reef Tract, that it is already contributing to its conservation, and that it can and will contribute more in the future, provided the public keeps demanding it. The TORTUGAS 2000 initiative, if and when implemented, will be a major step forward in this regard.

(5)REEF RELIEF's claim that the failure of the FKNMS to put an immediate end to all threats and degradation of the Florida Reef Tract proves that government and/or the Federal government can not contribute to coral reef protection is absurd on its face. Such a conclusion would be equivalent to stating that the failure of REEF RELIEF (which has been around much longer) to halt the degradation of the Florida Reef Tract demonstrates that local grassroots organizations can't contribute to coral reef protection. We are not ready to draw such a conclusion. Coral reef protection will require the hard, cooperative work of government, NGOs, and many others, at all spatial scales to make important contributions.

*********************************
Jack Sobel, Director Ecosystem Program
Center for Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales St. NW, Suite #600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 429-5609
Fax: (202) 872-0619
Email: jsobel@dccmc.org
*********************************

The situation on Vieques is complex. Yes, one of the leaders of the movement to remove the Navy from Vieques is the president of the local Fishermans' Association. He is also an avid supporter of several grass-roots efforts to protect and preserve the island's natural resources and has a keen respect for the island, its people, and its unique habitats. He has helped me in my research and has provided boats and manpower for efforts to monitor and protect Puerto Mosquito.

I caution you not to assume that because this gentleman is a a fisherman he only wants to see the Navy out so fishermen can exploit the local resources.

I repeat, the Vieques situation is complex. The Viequense have been isolated on their own island, there is tremendous pressure to "modernize" and "develop" the island for "the sake of the people," and the island harbors some healthy reefs and two of the last (monoculture- Pyrodinium bahamense) bioluminescent bays in the Caribbean. There are many "interests" involved in the Vieques situation and very few of them are concerned with protecting coral, bioluminescent bays or any other important habitat.

I have conducted research on both Vieques' reef systems and on Puerto Mosquito (biobay). I have worked with local environmental groups (Vieques Conservation and Historic Trust) and I have provided expert evidence in a law suit filed against the Municipality of Isabel Segunda, the Dept. of the Interior, the EPA and the Navy for violations of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

I have been quietly amused while this discussion has raged on the coral list. I am glad so many people have taken interest in this small island's welfare, but I'm afraid that witohut knowing the island many folks are looking for simple answers to an extremely difficult question.

The state of the coral and other important habitats located at Vieques is not solely the result of limited fishing harvest (they fish is most areas except during periods of bombing), but is also the result of limited urban and suburban development and the relatively low environmental impacts of the Navy's presence on the island.

The only way to move forward and solve this problem is to move slowly. The local government, grass roots organizations the Navy and the federal government need to frame a plan that will solve this problem while protecting Vieques' unique resources.

***********************************************************************
David H. Niebuhr, Ph.D.
Education and Communications Coordinator
Chesapeake Bay NERR in Virginia/School of Education
College of William and Mary
POB 1346 Gloucester Pt., VA 23062
Phone: 804.684.7144
Fax: 804.684.7120
niebuhr@vims.edu
***********************************************************************

From: Edwin Hernandez-Delgado [coral_giac@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:11 PM
To: gene@fearless.er.usgs.gov; niebuhr@vims.edu; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov; eco-isla@earthsystems.org
Subject: Re: Vieques

Dear coral-listers.

The letter attached below was sent as a carbon copy (CC) to me by Dr. Gene Shinn. I decided to post it simply because there is still people who claims that this is more an emotional issue than a scientific issue. Certainly, we have to deal with both things. But blaming fishermen for all problems in Puerto Rican coral reefs outside of Navy's waters is like only being looking at the point of the iceberg.

Yes, there are many emotional aspects nvolved in this issue. Fifty eight years of bombs pounding in the backyards of nearly 10,000 residents has obviously been emotional. A 27% cancer rate has obviously been emotional. And Viequenses are very clear, no more bombs! Please, let's not forget that we are dealing, not only with coral and fish, but with people.

Let's discuss possible management alternatives. But, has anybody ever asked the simple question of what are we going to discuss about if there is no baseline data about the actual status of coral reefs and reef fisheries within target areas? Should we start by that fact? We have the expertise to carry out that type of studies in the University of Puerto Rico, but the U.S. and the Puerto Rican government seem to be not interested in that. Any suggestions?

Edwin A. Hernandez-Delgado
University of Puerto Rico

From: Gene Shinn
To: niebuhr@vims.edu
CC: coral_giac@hotmail.com
Subject: Vieques
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:28:12 -0500

Dear David, Thank you for your calm and collected response to my brief comment on the Vieques situation. I realize this is a highly complex issue and the reef is probably just the tip of the political iceberg. Wish now I had stayed out of the fracus. There is certainly more emotion than science involved in this issue. You might be interested to know that I established 3 coral monitoring stations on Culebra after they were impacted by hurricane Hugo and have spent a few months on the island. Did get a good sense of local feelings and of course almost everyday we heard the bombs over on Vieques..The bottom line on our monitoring (have turned the whole project over to Ginger Garrison USGS/BRD at St. John VI) was that the reefs (both windward, leeward, and a polluted site off the canal that drains the village) were recovering rapidly after the Hurricane but then in the late 1990s diseases set in and corals that had regrown started to die. It is an interesting problem and unfortunately it is Caribbean-wide. I could go on and on but will wait until we learn more about what kills corals in isolated parts of the Caribbean where the human population is low. Thanks again for your calm and informative response. Gene

"If we lose our capacity to be wrong, we are not doing the business of science" Charles L. Drake
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
Gene Shinn                                        | email eshinn@usgs.gov
USGS Center for Coastal Geology     | http://coastal.er.usgs.gov
600 4th St. South                               | voice (727) 803-8747 x3030
St.Petersburg, FL 33701                    | fax (727) 803-2032
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------

From: Edwin Hernandez-Delgado [coral_giac@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:55 PM
To: jplacer@aa.net; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov; eco-isla@earthsystems.org
Subject: Info about Vieques

For more information about the Vieques situation, please contact:

For information regarding the draft proposed sustainable development plan of a Navy-free Vieques, please contact:

Robert Rabin
Comite Pro Rescate y Desarrollo de Vieques
(Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques)
bieke@coqui.net

Regards,

Edwin

Edwin A. Hernandez-Delgado
Investigador Asociado Universidad de Puerto Rico
Departamento de Biologia Grupo de Investigacion en Arrecifes de Coral
P.O. Box 23360
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931-3360
Tel. (787) 764-0000, x-4855
Fax (787) 764-2610
e-mail: coral_giac@hotmail.com diploria@coqui.net
******************************************

From: Wendy Jo [slkyshrk@sgi.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 11:13 PM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Vieques reefs

Although I am not a scientist (working on it) I find this discussion between hurricane damage and bombing damage quite intriguing, but some points are sorely being missed on this aspect.

Hurricanes are Mother Nature's way of replanting, replenishing, recycling, killing, giving birth to, and fixing whatever needs to be, the way she sees fit, in ways that we can't even begin to comprehend. Although we do try so hard sometimes. That's science. There's nothing "emotional" about it. Bombing by humans can never be compared to nature's way of doing things, not under any circumstances, no matter how wonderful a scientist one is. Bombing is humans way of saying "I do this because I can." Even after reading the threads on this, I still cannot see the benefit of destroying this island, or parts of it, that is inhabited by fellow human beings, and diverse wildlife. What DO we know about the island and it's inhabitants? (ALL of them). Ever stop to think that the diverse plantlife we're choking and destroying could be a cure for some disease? When, pray tell, will we ever fight a human against human war such as we did 50 years ago, using this particular "technology"? I fear that the next will be with sticks and stones. (And I can't remember who said that.)

Like the age of DDT, what are we gonna do 20, 30, 40 years from now. Say "Whoops."?? I think we should be tired of that mentality by now. As a child, my mom and dad always taught me to "Look before you Leap". It's a policy that, as an adult, I live by.

If we learn to think further ahead to the future of our current endeavors, we might be able to end the battle that we've waged on this one and only life support system that we have.

Sincerely,
Wendy Jo

"The library of life is on fire, and we must put it out."
~~Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway

>>)):> >>)):> >>)):> >>)):> >>)):> >>)):> >>)):> >>)):>
Wendy Jo Shemansky
Graduate Student
Environmental Research Science and Management
Duquesne University
Environmental News Director, West Penn Scuba Divers
Pittsburgh, PA
slkyshrk@sgi.net
(412) 244 - 3318

From: Prasanna Weerakkody [firefish@sltnet.lk]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 8:54 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Vieques

On the issue of Vieques; I am located far away in the Indian Ocean and wathching the dialogue I Just wandered how the reefs are better off with bombs going off all around. We see the impact of underwater explosions on reefs commonly as the practice of Fish dynamiting is common here where we work.

Even with the small charges used the sea floor damage can be drastic in situations and it sure has a major impact on the fish species composition on the reef. The reef is soon cleared of all big Jacks, Groupers, Parrots, Sweetlips and the like. Fish loss is not only by being killed by the blast but they seem to avoid these reefs as well. In the East coast of Sri Lanka where the coastline is under Navy command, Regular underwater blasts are carried out to keep terorist divers from penitrating the defence barries. Diving on a reef aproximately 1.5Km. away from blast zone the same conditions were true. The reef was intact (as no blasting occured on the reef itself) and most fish were in good numbers (actualy better than neibouring areas subjected to fishing) but no big fish was seen on these reefs as was the experiance with the Southern reefs subjected to fish Dynamiting.

Prasanna Weerakkody
Nature Conservation Group (Natcog)

No.9, Balapokuna place,
Colombo 6.
Sri Lanka
Phone: (941) 856041
E-mail: firefish@sltnet.lk

From: EricHugo@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 8:13 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Vieques

I had not read this thread until this morning, having saved it for what has become an almost "novel-istic" foray of banter and enlightening discussion. I do have a question that has occurred to me, perhaps from stepping back from the more involved day-to-day postings. Notwithstanding the other complex issues that must be addressed, but in terms of the bombing in Vieques and elsewhere,

Why coral reefs at all?

If a military decides for any reason at all (however senseless and with whatever locale, human, and other aspects that may be forthcoming), are there not shallow areas less threatened, less biodiverse, and less ecologically invasive than the actual coral reefs? A sandy area a few km's away? Is there something special about bombing a reef? I doubt that invertebrates are being used as animal test subjects for projectile impact studies later....after all, the US military uses higher primates from even more threatened habitats for that end! Seemingly, the use of areas of low biodiversity nearby would also still passively protect fisheries and other useries by proximity alone.

And "Wendy Jo": It was Einstein who quoted, "I don't know how World War 3 will be fought, but I do know how World War 4 will be fought...with sticks and stones."

If you like that, you should read his other thoughts on peace, disarmament, and the general state of man. The US military and out world should engage such ideas, as well.

Eric Borneman

>Residents of Vieques Island also suffer a 26% incidence of cancer, which is
>way higher than the average for the main island of Puerto Rico. This means
>that almost one of every three viequenses will die from cancer!!!!! Can
>anybody has an explanation for that?

Sorry I don't have an explanation. I understand that studies are being done at this time to try to determine the cause or causes of this tragic phenomenon. However, in truth there is a difference between being diagnosed with cancer and dying from it. Not all cancers are terminal, if treated in time. Also, in the absence of hard data on the causes, it would be fair to say that it is premature to suggest any link to any particular cause. At this point, one could easily come up with a list of plausible hypotheses, INCLUDING military activities. I know this has little to do with corals... Not defending the Navy -- just the scientific method and objectivity.

*******************************************
Craig G. Lilyestrom, Ph.D.
Chief, Marine Resources Division
Dept. of Natural & Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 9066600
San Juan, P.R. 00906-6600
(787) 724-8772 ext. 4042
(787) 723-2805 (FAX)
craig@caribe.net
*******************************************

From: Edwin Hernandez-Delgado [coral_giac@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 6:39 PM
To: craig@caribe.net; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov; eco-isla@earthsystems.org
Subject: On the role of the DNER regarding Vieques

Craig

It has been nearly 8 months since the last bomb was thrown in Vieques Island. The official position of the government of Puerto Rico, since then, has been to stop bombing and that the U.S. Navy should leave Vieques as soon as possible.

Excuse me, but I disagree with you. Why don't you go and talk about the scientific method and objectivity to the cancer-diagnosed viequenses? Many rare types of cancer keep showing up in a lot of people there. This is not a random natural phenomenon.

But, following a precautionary principle, the U.S. Navy is the most serious environmental threat and the major generator of toxic and carcinogenic pollutants in Vieques. Let's stop the major source of threats until all studies are finished and conclusions are drawn. Damage is already done and we might probably keep looking at the long-term results of that during the next decades.

But, many people in the scientific community still have a lot of questions. Why does the Marine Resources Division of the P.R. Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) has never done anything to quantitatively document damage in those coral reefs? The DNER has plenty of trained personnel, as does the University of Puerto Rico. Also, the DNER has received a lot of money through the International Coral Reef Initiative. Where's that money going to? To pay the high salaries of a private consultant? What is the DNER plan to protect those coral reefs after the Navy is gone? Is the DNER working out a management plan? Not to my knowledge.

It's being time to come up with a major effort and do our job. Many of us in the scientific community in Puerto Rico are willing to go there and help the DNER to carry out a multi-disciplinary study of the Vieques Island's coral reefs. Can you take that initiative?

Edwin

Edwin A. Hernandez-Delgado
Investigador Asociado Universidad de Puerto Rico
Departamento de Biologia Grupo de Investigacion en Arrecifes de Coral
P.O. Box 23360
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931-3360
Tel. (787) 764-0000, x-4855
Fax (787) 764-2610
e-mail: coral_giac@hotmail.com diploria@coqui.net
******************************************

From: Doug Fenner [d.fenner@aims.gov.au]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 10:02 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Vieques reefs- positive suggestions

Some positive suggestions for Vieques, that may apply to other locations as well:

1. I think that we all are agreed that bombing reefs or island ecologies does not improve them- they do in fact damage them (pretty severely where the bomb drops, no doubt about it). And it is something that reefs have not evolved to cope with, as they have with hurricanes. The original petition was asking for a cessation of active bombing of Vieques, which will undoubtedly help the reefs as well as land ecology and local residents. Some of the discussion has been about what to do after the bombs stop falling. I suggested that leaving it an inactive military base might preserve the reef better than allowing unlimited development. Well-planned and regulated development may be able to preserve the reef and be better for local inhabitants as well, but unbridled development may be worse for all involved, possibly even worse for the reef than continued active bombing of the island and presumably collateral (accidental) bomb damage to reefs (seems unlikely the Navy is deliberately targeting the reefs- they just happen to be nearby and get hit from time to time).

Ideas for after the military leaves:

2. No-extraction reserves can significantly increase fishing yields in other nearby areas. Increased fish abundances may produce spillover of fish into nearby fished areas. Larger adult sizes allows greatly increased reproductive effort that may seed large areas of surrounding or downstream fishing areas. In effect, reserves are natural fish farms, which also preserve pieces of the environment. Apo Island, Philippines is an outstanding example. So successful is the reserve system in that part of the Philippines, that villages ask to have reserves set up near them!

3. Consultation of all stakeholders is a must. Dictatorial edicts of central government agencies, including military, that do not involve consultation with local residents builds animosity and may make the project more difficult or even impossible to implement. Besides, it's just plain not democratic. Persuasion, by the facts and good arguments is the tool of choice (not force), and it can (and probably should) go both ways- all parties need to listen as well as make their cases. Sham consultations after the decision has been made will not do the job. Decisions and the process leading to them, must be transparent, i.e., public record. Absolute consensus of all stakeholder parties is often not possible. If the process is perceived to be open and fair, those whose views are not followed will be less likely to be resentful and seek ways to sabotage the adopted plan. As those doing environmental impact assessments say, if you consult and work with all parties, especially environmental groups and those potentially opposed, from the beginning of planning, you can almost always avoid the very expensive and difficult conflicts and suits in the late stages of a project. Consulting all the parties is just plain smart and in your own interest.

4. No-extraction reserves can be used for sustainable, non-destructive uses that provide much more economic benefit to the local community than fishing. Dive tourism can be carried out on an amazingly large scale with surprisingly little effect on reefs. And the economic payoff can be huge- at $50 or so per dive, a moderate size operation can bring in a million dollars in just a couple years. Divers are attracted much more by large fish, and repelled by a lack of fish. Dead, a big fish is worth a few dollars in most markets. Alive, it's made of solid gold, and can keep pulling the income in year after year. And diving employs quite a few people- divemasters, instructors, boat captains and crews, plus all the hotel workers, restaurant, curio shop, transportation, etc.

A prime example- Cozumel, Mexico, one of the 3 biggest hard currency-earning resort areas in the whole of Mexico. With a town of 60,000+ people living primarily off of divers and the cascading effect of all the services they purchase. With an average of 2000 dives per day, 364 days a year, the roughly 10 miles of reef that draws the divers receives so little damage from divers that the reef continued to recover from the mild effects of Hurricane Gilbert even when diving had returned to 2000 dives per day. The coral looks great, and the reefs swarm with fish, including big ones like 4 foot long groupers. And the whole dive industry and reef protection there grew out of the divers liking what they saw, and the fishermen finding out they could make a lot more money taking divers out than fishing. The reef protection was very much a local initiative.

The beauty is that a reserve can both serve to boost local fisheries in areas outside the reserve, and provide the basis for a thriving diving industry. Both fishermen and dive operators benefit, and need not be in conflict. And the reef benefits.

If diving is not properly managed, it too can be destructive. There are published reports of damage from divers in the Red Sea. And to be realistic, diving will always cause some damage, but it can be really quite minor damage compared to other alternative uses of reefs. And it's probably a practical reality that most reefs will have use of some kind or other by humans- we are lucky if we get any choice about which kind of use that is. The best we can do is to minimize damage, hopefully well below the level the reef can recover from.

5. Human population centers, certainly including the tourist accommodations, are best located away from or downstream from reefs. Human populations living close to reefs usually have deleterious effects on those reefs. The closer the people are and the larger their number, the more strictly all sorts of things must be controlled to protect the reef. Land clearing, construction, and runoff and sewage disposal are big ones, but there are probably others, such as gray water disposal, fertilizers & pesticides used on fields, gardens, and ornamental plants, etc. Example: reefs near the population of Curacao are degraded, while those a few kilometers away upstream are in good shape.

6. All-inclusive luxury resorts are no help to the local community. Small-scale, locally owned operations are. Most large luxury resorts have outside owners. Patrons pay the owners through their travel agent, and very little of the money ever gets to the local community the resort is located in. The patrons often don't leave the premises for meals or other services. This system fosters a class system with a huge gap between wealthy visitors and poor residents, that does not foster understanding or tolerance, and may even encourage abuse. Small, locally owned facilities ensure that the income goes into the local community, more local people are employed and benefit, the society has less economic gap between visitors and locals, and the closer contact fosters more understanding and tolerance, maybe even enjoying learning a little bit about another culture.

-Doug

Douglas Fenner, Ph.D.
Coral Biodiversity/Taxonomist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB No 3
Townsville MC Queensland 4810
Australia phone 07 4753 4334
e-mail: d.fenner@aims.gov.au
web: http://www.aims.gov.au

From: Alexander Stone [reefkeeper@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 4:48 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: ReefKeeper Intl on Vieques Bombing

DEAR CORAL LISTERS:

BELOW IS REEFKEEPER INTERNATIONAL'S REQUEST TO PRESIDENT CLINTON FOR A PERMANENT HALT TO LIVE BOMBING AT VIEQUES. LET'S ALL KEEP THE PRESSURE UP!

ALEXANDER STONE
REEFKEEPER INTERNATIONAL

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

December 3, 1999

President William J. Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Re: Navy Bombing at Vieques, Puerto Rico

Dear President Clinton:

ReefKeeper International urges you to permanently eliminate the live-fire bombing occurring on the coral reefs off Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. ReefKeeper International, a non-profit conservation organization with members in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and abroad, has been working for over 10 years to protect coral reefs throughout the world.

Importance of Vieques Island's Marine Environment

The marine waters surrounding Vieques Island are home to some of the most extraordinary ecosystems in the world. Of the seven bioluminescent bays in the world, three are at Vieques Island. The coral reefs off Vieques Island where bomb craters are not present are among the healthiest and most diverse in the U.S. Caribbean. Endangered species such as manatees, brown pelicans and four species of sea turtles (green, hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead) rely on the marine environment of Vieques Island. The

Threat to Vieques' Coral Reefs

The Navy has used the marine waters off Vieques Island, including the fragile coral reefs, for live-fire practice. The dropping and subsequent explosions of heavy ordinance has already resulted in significant harm to the marine environment.

Craters in the coral reef measuring 25 meters wide and 5 meters deep have been reported (Hernandez-Delgado, 1999). Huge coral heads are cracked or pulverized and large numbers of fish are killed in a matter of seconds when a bomb is dropped. In Sri Lanka, smaller blasting by dynamite has been reported to not only directly damage the blast area but keep larger fish such as groupers away from reefs as far as 1.5 km away from the blast site (Weerakkody, 1999). This adverse impact on reef fish populations from just a small blast must be significantly larger in the area of Vieques Island, where the blasting occurs on a much larger scale.

Unexploded ordinances remain around the island, posing a danger not only to fishers and divers but to the marine life inhabiting the area. The precious coral reefs off Vieques Island literally resemble a war zone.

1983 Memorandum of Understanding

In 1983, the Government of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Navy entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in which it agreed that the U.S. Navy would stop targeting and shelling offshore coral reefs. In complete violation of that memorandum, the U.S. Navy has continued these practices and caused further destruction to the marine ecosystem.

Endangered Species Act Violations

The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to:
"ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat."
The continued bombing of coral reefs off Vieques Island clearly fails to protect endangered manatees, pelicans, and sea turtles. The U.S. Navy has even failed to determine the impact of its actions on endangered or threatened species, as required pursuant by Section 7.0 of the Endangered Species Act.

E.O. 13089 - Your Clear Obligation to Act

Executive Order 13089, signed by your hand on June 11, 1998, states in Section 2 :
"All Federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems shall: ... (b) utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems; and (c) to the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems."
(emphasis added)
The continued bombing of the coral reefs off Vieques clearly violate the language and intent of your Executive Order.

ReefKeeper International respectfully requests that you immediately ban any further live fire bombing of the coral reefs off Vieques Islands to protect these valuable marine assets. Thank you for your consideration, and anticipated support, of our request.

Sincerely,

Alexander Stone
Director
Citations

Hernandez-Delgado, Edwin A. Research Associate, University of Puerto
Rico. Posting to coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov, November 29, 1999.

Weerakkody, Prasanna, Nature Conservation Group (Natcog), Sri Lanka.
Posting to coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov, November 29, 1999.

While most of us find it hard enough to maintain some level of objectivity in discussions about nutrients, Edwin Hernandez, a Puerto Rican marine biologist, made some well defended points to this list on the Vieques issue. Edwin and his coral reef research team spend many hours underwater monitoring coral reefs in Culebra and Fajardo while listening.. and feeling... the underwater blasts of reefs being destroyed near Vieques -- those sounds which one U.S. Senator so cavalierly (and ironically) described as "The Sounds of Freedom."

A civilian is dead and four others injured. For us, and for the people of Puerto Rico, it is too late for more Navy promises. We hope that the events soon to follow with those individuals camping in an act of civil disobedience on the target range do not result in further loss of life.

Currently President Clinton is in the process of deciding one thing....is it in the interest of National Security to continue bombing the island of Vieques...with either live and/or inert ordnance? To our knowledge, all of Clinton's National Security advisors are either retired or current military personnel.

The Navy is not managing a Nature Reserve on Vieques by any stretch of the imagination.

What the U.S. Navy is doing to this fragile and biologically diverse tropical ecosystem, as well as the poor community inhabiting the island, is far from sustainable in terms of natural resources, or ethical in terms of human rights. If this island is so crucial to National Security, as the Navy once similarly claimed of Culebra, why did the Navy so carelessly violate its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the people of Puerto Rico? Dr. James Porter of the University of Georgia recently surveyed coral reefs in the target area on Vieques on behalf of the government of Puerto Rico. In a letter dated August 27, 1999 to Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, Dr. Porter wrote the following:

"We found substantial evidence that military activity on Vieques is contributing to the degradation of the island's coral reefs. To make matters worse, we also found physical evidence that the Navy has not lived up to its 1983 Memorandum of Understanding not to target or shell offshore coral reefs. Despite signing this MOU, the Navy is in fact still targeting objects positioned on the reef, and believe me, we saw and documented clear signs of coral reef destruction from this bombardment."

We have possibly contributed to the confusion regarding sustainable development issues springing up on this topic. For years we have been expressing concerns to both Reef Relief and to CMC regarding Puerto Rico's construction driven economy and government incentives which propel what I would describe as rampant and reckless development. Many scientists on this list have been to Puerto Rico and witnessed the impacts to our reefs from such non-sustainable practice first hand. Our sediment clogged rivers and decimated reef systems surrounding the big island are a testament to the ineffective job local government and indeed organizations like ours are doing to conserve our coastal resources. Local non-government environmental groups in Puerto Rico are admittedly spread very thin. The government of Puerto Rico passes new laws whose objetive is to exclude meaningful public participation and most recently the need to submit an EIS for developments which are "fast tracked" through government offices. We are at constant odds with local and federal government agencies involved in resource conservation, as our mission is strictly one of conservation and their motives often seem less clearly definable.

It is of no surprise conservation orgs have not been effective when the only course of action at both the local and federal government levels is to go to court to get government agencies to enforce their own environmental laws.

It is also significant that we are united with our local government on this one issue - to stop the bombing of Vieques.

As Edwin Hernandez mentioned, there is a multi-disciplinary group of local scientists, engineers and professors now drafting management plans WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY of Vieques, to address toxic clean up, conservation management planning and limited sustainable development - if the Navy leaves. This team represents real planning talent with the interest of both the people of Puerto Rico and of conserving their natural heritage. What is of concern is that there are no guarantees this panel's recommendations will be considered or implemented by local government.

This, however, in no way influences our conviction that the Navy must stop bombing Vieques.

Puerto Rico is not the only place where greed and short sighted planning has resulted in the destruction of coral reefs or other diverse ecosystems.

Puerto Rico is the only place where intense evaluation of weapons systems for the U.S. Navy and NATO forces is conducted and concentrated in diverse tropical ecosystems on a small island with over 9,000 inhabitants.

We encourage others involved in coral reef conservation issues to fax President Clinton, if you have not already taken action. We live and work in Puerto Rico and recognize this as the first important step toward the community of Vieques achieving their conservation objectives on the biologically diverse, tropical island of Vieques. Let the President know we simply do not have the luxury, if we ever had, of targeting fragile ecosystem with either live or inert ordnance.

From: CORALations [corals@caribe.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 10:23 AM
To: Coral-List
Subject: Fw: Clinton's Vieques Statement

Attached is the Text of President Clinton's statement Friday on U.S. military training on Vieques.

We would like to provide some historical perspective based on a similar situation to Vieques which took place on the Puerto Rico island of Culebra. The U.S. Navy also conducted live fire target practice on this biologically diverse and inhabited island of Puerto Rico. Navy was forced out by the people of Culebra in 1976 because Culebra was considered spoils of the Spanish-American war - a land treaty technicality. (The Navy did not leave for ethical reasons). The National Security arguments stated by the military for Culebra in the late 60's are very similar to those being stated today for Vieques. (See Culebra y la Marina de Estados Unidos by Carmelo Delgado Cintrón, Appendix XX)

At the turn of the Century, the Navy was attracted to Culebra because of its large harbor, Ensenada Honda, which the Navy considered the most hurricane safe harbor in the Caribbean. At this time President Theodore Roosevelt set part of this island aside for the Atlantic Fleet's weapons training area and part of the island aside for a Federal Refuge. After the Navy left, more areas including offshore cays littered with unexploded ordnance from the target practice were included under the Federal Refuge status.

Around 600 people lived on Culebra at the beginning of the 1900's. Their main town of San Ildefonso (a Taino Indian village 1,000 years earlier) was relocated by the Navy, and renamed Dewey, after the famous Admiral. The Navy left for Cuba to establish a base at Guantanamo, so Culebra was fairly quiet until things began to heat up in Europe in the late 1930's. The Navy returned and began concentrated live fire target practice now on the outskirts of a much larger population on Culebra. Many of the "Old Timers" on Culebra speak English, because they had to learn to deal with the Navy personnel. Many locals have not so flattering stories of the behavior of military personnel when they would come into town binge drinking and assaulting family members. Others to this day are really friendly to gringos and share stories about famous Navy admirals they met, etc... Many Culebrenses have served in the U.S. military and many still do.

Locals have also shared stories about how Navy ordnance would drift a considerable distance from the target areas and lodge in their tin roofs in the center of the town of Dewey. They told me how they used to go down to the beaches at night and watch the tracers flying in the sky like fire works displays. A few residents have shell casings in their yards to this day, some white washed, as decorations or possibly memorials of days gone by. Two Sherman tanks stand rusting surreally posed to the backdrop of beautiful Flamenco Beach...once heavily targeted by U.S. Navy warships.

The central peninsula of Flamenco was repeatedly napalmed. I was told, (but am not sure it is true), that this altered the vegetation which ironically turned it into ideal nesting habitat for endangered tern colonies. Some 55,000 endangered sea birds return to Culebra and offshore cays every year to nest. Hopefully this does not encourage Audubon Society members to begin napalming hillsides.

Only three years ago did the Army Corps of Engineers begin scanning terrestrial areas for unexploded ordnance, outside of the Federal Refuge areas. When the Navy left Culebra, ordnance clean up was not part of the agreement. I have been told by an x-military person, now turned conservationist, that they used to pile up the bombs on the most impressive coral heads and then explode them periodically as part of the clean up. I asked why the most impressive corals and he said...it made for a more spectacular explosion to watch from shore. I have also heard that there used to be "fly over" populations of pink flamingos that would run on Flamenco Beach and feed in the neighboring salt pond. People have said they were shot for target practice by Navy personnel.(I believe this is true as it was confirmed a similar fate happened to the nesting population on Anegada, only it was the locals who shot them. Now local descendants have successfully started and are caring for a new breeding population on Anegada).

It is true that some of the best coral reefs remaining in Puerto Rico are found around Culebra. The Navy presence may or may not have halted development on this island for a while. I don't think from this you can conclude that the Navy presence actually "conserved" these resources, even if you are callous enough to take out the human factor of these practices on this small inhabited island. Current coral coverage may rather be a testament to the population of coral which existed 50 years ago, water quality of healthy coral larval source areas, greater and diverse reef fish populations, a fairly disease free environment and less frequent and intense storms. Also the reason Culebra for so long escaped the development juggernaut (I love saying juggernaut) may have more to do with its isolation and changing climate. Fresh water is now limited on Culebra. Two centuries of deforestation, agriculture and now extensive land clearing for development is altering the entire island into a stressed desert ecosystem where once creeks supported crawdads or crayfish (anecdotal evidence). Pending developments are now being approved after the recent completion of an underwater water pipeline, (which based on interoffice government communications - will have no water coming out of it.)

The coral reef situation is clearly different for Vieques today.

In Culebra there are still giant craters left in some reef areas and unexploded ordnance left in the water. It may have been a blessing the Navy left without cleaning the underwater ordnance, given that their only method for cleaning is piling up the ordnance and exploding. In 1996, for example, the Navy clean up of underwater unexploded WWII bombs off the Pacific island of Rota did an estimated 80 million dollars worth of damage at the Coral Gardens dive site (University of Guam). Terrestrial ordnance accidents have injured several people on Culebra since the Navy left. (anecdotal evidence).

Puerto Rico is complicated. For obvious reasons imperialistic approaches attached to anything from economic reform policies to environmental management planning are resisted...and based on PR history, I find this understandable.

Today Puerto Rico is asking for your help as coral reef experts, managers and conservationists. If you have not already done so please fax President Clinton and tell him no more live or inert U.S. Navy target practice on Vieques.

White House Fax Line: 202-456-2461

Sincerely,

Mary Ann Lucking

Project Coordinator

CORALations

PMB 222

5900 Isla Verde Ave. L2

Carolina, PR 00979-4901

corals@caribe.net

From: Jim_Maragos@r1.fws.gov
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 6:49 PM
To: Les Kaufman; Doug Fenner
Cc: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re[2]: Could bombing benefit Vieques reefs?

Les Kaufman's comments about Johnston Atollmay be misunderstood bythe uninformed. The reefs of Johnston Atoll were never bombed. There were VERY high atmospheric nuclear tests at the atoll in the late 1950s and possibly the early 1960s, but none of these tests were anywhere near sea level or underwater. A few military rockets blew up on the launch pad and plutonium may have been scattered into the ocean near Johnston Island in the early 60s, but the atoll was never used as a bombing range and there is no evidence of bomb craters or other impacts associated with live firing and bombing. True, the atoll was dredged in the early 60s to expand the land area and construct an airfield and port at the atoll, and indeed during the subsequent 35 years, the reefs have recovered.

As a result I don't think the recent history of Johnston Atoll has much relevance to the ongoing discussion regarding the bombing at Vieques. Wouldn't it be better to focus some of our efforts on evaluating reef areas that were actually used for military bombing practice? Where are these areas? Let's make a list of them and find out how they are doing!

James E. Maragos, Ph.D. Coral Reef Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Ecoregion

____________________Reply Separator____________________

Subject: Re: Could bombing benefit Vieques reefs?
Author: owner-coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Date: 11/20/99 6:14 AM

Strong endorsement of Doug's point.

Several on the list have visited or worked at Johnston Atoll, site of a facility for the disposal of chemical weapons and a place with a history of environmental insults. The reef is mostly in very beautiful condition due to the restrictions on access and use, and is now within a National Wildlife Sanctuary.

Les Kaufman
Boston University Marine Program
lesk@bio.bu.edu
617-353-5560 office
617-353-6965 lab
617-353-6340 fax

From: Edwin Hernandez-Delgado [coral_giac@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 4:05 PM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: PROCEEDINGS ABOUT VIEQUES

Dear coral-listers.

For all of you who are truly interested in the Vieques bombing issue, I enclosed some interesting information regarding the position of the U.S. Navy about Vieques and their opinion about us, Puerto Ricans. I won't comment, but judge by yourselves. I included the web site address in case you want to access it directly.

http://www.usni.org/Proceedings

Regards,

Edwin

Edwin A. Hernandez-Delgado
Investigador Asociado Universidad de Puerto Rico
Departamento de Biologia Grupo de Investigacion en Arrecifes de Coral
P.O. Box 23360
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931-3360
Tel. (787) 764-0000, x-4855
Fax (787) 764-2610
e-mail: coral_giac@hotmail.com diploria@coqui.net
******************************************

From: Les Kaufman [lesk@bio.bu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 8:52 AM
To: Jim_Maragos@r1.fws.gov
Cc: Doug Fenner; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Could bombing benefit Vieques reefs?

I want to thank Jim for the clarifications regarding Johnston Atoll vs. Vieques, though I am a bit horrified that anything I said could have been misconstrued as having implied that Johnston had been cratered. I must have been too subtle. My point was only thata history of military jursidiction was not an entirely bad thing in all cases or in all ways. It should be obvious that transition to long-term stewardship with conservation in min and adequate resources to effect this goal, is the desired situation.

I was also trying to DISPEL a notion that Johnston was a wasteland, an impression that might have been generated by existing misconceptions. The Johnston atoll reef is one of the most beautiful, interesting, and intact that I have ever seen, and is a priceless observatory in which we can learn much about coral reef ecology in an environment where we can also hope to seggregate global from local signals. All of this has nothing to do with the military, and everything to do with recognizing the unique values represented by the coral reef systems historically within military reserves.

As for Vieques, these days ANY Caribbean reef under effective stewardship is a priceless thing, especially if it holds hope of preserving intact representatives of Atlantic acroporid assemblages, which have been greatly reduced.

Les Kaufman
Boston University
Marine Program Department of Biology
5 Cummington Street
Boston, MA 02215
lesk@bio.bu.edu
617-353-5560 office
617-353-6965 lab
617-353-6340 fax

FYI, this article (copy below) appeared last Sunday in the NY Times. It says
Vieques has been debated in PR for at least 28 years, but the vehemence of
current Navy opposition is apparent in all three factions--the
pro-commonwealth, pro-statehood and pro-independence forces--all agree that
the Navy must get out. That's the driving force. Sustainability should be a
priority but to do that you have to push the ecological priorities from the
local political level.

Again and again across the decades, the United States marines have stormed
ashore here on Yellow Beach in a full rain of firepower and won the vital
mock battleground that has been made of the eastern third of this small, lush
island.

But not now, and not ever again, according to the resolve of Senator Ruben
Berrios Martinez, the Puerto Rican lawmaker and Independence Party leader who
holds the political high ground with a mere pamphleteer's firepower.
In seven months of peaceful uprising set off by the death of a civilian in a
wayward bombing run, the senator has led dozens of angry squatters in
blocking beachfronts of the amphibious training ground for the United States
Navy's Atlantic fleet.

The squatters have managed to turn ground zero in the Navy's practice wars
into a looming bastion of nationalism in Puerto Rico's long struggle for
definition in the shadow of the United States.

''It will be a cumulative triumph,'' Mr. Berrios predicted today as he warily
patrolled the pristine sands of Yellow Beach and rejected the latest
compromise offer by the Clinton administration to gradually return the
shell-pocked island to the full control of its 9,300 residents.

''But now we are on their radar screen and all this is a big triumph in the
struggle for decolonialization,'' Mr. Berrios said, acknowledging that he was
as much amazed as determined in having achieved the full and urgent attention
of Washington.

This realization of the simmering political power of Puerto Ricans in finally
being heeded at the highest levels after centuries of colonial subservience
is being celebrated heartily across the main island of Puerto Rico, eight
miles to the west, as much as here on this verdant sliver that the Navy has
used as it pleased since World War II.

''Navy Out!'' signs dot the rich kaleidoscopic scene of San Juan as Gov.
Pedro J. Rossello and other Puerto Rican political leaders across the
spectrum echo the firmness of Mr. Berrios, the San Juan politician who first
chose the path of civil disobedience. Now, he and his fellow squatters can
grin in their storm-tattered tents at the fact that while he was quickly
arrested and roundly condemned by the Puerto Rican Legislature when he took a
similar protest course 28 years ago, his action this time was avidly blessed
by the Legislature as a legitimate and necessary function of lawmaking.

In 1971, Mr. Berrios lasted only five days before being imprisoned for three
months. ''And now, seven months on the beach is a small kind of victory,'' he
said in an interview, citing an array of changed circumstances. These include
the vast tide of Spanish Americans now inheriting political power across the
United States, he noted, and a growing international realization that if

Washington can creatively help Britain clean up its colonial baggage in
Northern Ireland, why should it not see as well to the lingering grievances
of Puerto Rico in its own sphere.

This point was brought home to many Puerto Ricans last month when the leading
European heads of state voted as members of the Socialist International not
only to support the Vieques cause but also to choose Senator Berrios as its
president.

Surveying his wind-whipped camp at the foot of the Navy's Vieques observation
post, the senator insisted that the simple scene of resistance had the power
to revive the independence cause, a minuscule movement eclipsed in the four
decades since Puerto Rico became a commonwealth of the United States, a
status that Puerto Rican voters have favored repeatedly in plebiscites.

''This is a metaphor, a prelude of what is going to happen in Puerto Rico as
a whole soon,'' Mr. Berrios said. ''Because the United States cannot live
with a remnant of 19th-century empire like Puerto Rico. It's not being true
to its history nor its future.''

The resistance campsites have been growing along with the visits to Vieques
by institutional leaders hurrying to catch up with an issue that polls show
is engrossing a large part of the Puerto Rican population. It is one of the
few issues on which Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions --
pro-commonwealth, pro-statehood and pro-independence -- seem to be united.

This week the Roman Catholic hierarchy signaled its own show of force,
issuing parish appeals for solidarity behind Vieques even as a Navy battle
group led by the aircraft carrier Eisenhower retreated from the training
grounds under orders from Washington.

Another Vieques squatter, Fernando Martin , a law professor at the University
of Puerto Rico who is vice president of the Independence Party, exulted,
''The issue of this little island has taken more of President Clinton's time
and, I dare say, anxiety than the whole Puerto Rican issue has received from
all the presidents from McKinley up to now.''

President Clinton's latest proposal, to return Vieques to local control
within five years, repair the 52-square-mile island with $40 million in aid
and have the Navy fire only ''inert'' ammunition, not live salvos, was
rejected by Puerto Rican political leaders as inadequate. Inert rounds would
rain down with all the power of ''inert'' lead bullet heads, islanders
warned.

''It is another trick,'' a fisherman muttered here in Esperanza village amid
the usual daily catch of rumors and speculation on the will of Washington.
''Clinton is lulling us so they can sneak in federal agents to arrest the
squatters,'' the fisherman insisted at the dockside before setting out for
the protest camps on the circuitous choppy water route around the Marines'
land sentinels.

At critical turnings along the southeast coast, squatters waved at the
passing boat from huts jerry-built from wooden Navy target boards and other
detritus of the seven-month standoff. The news media of Puerto Rico, and
lately the world, course through the whitecaps to feed a story that has
seized the commonwealth.

''There is this overwhelming consensus throughout Puerto Rico that has never
existed before,'' said Robert Rabin, the director of Vieques's El Fortin
museum, which is rich in the history of five centuries of foreigners' claims
of empire in Puerto Rico. ''This is a historic moment for Puerto Rico,'' Mr.
Rabin said of the civil disobedience galvanized by the once unthinkable
notion of resisting the claims of the United States war machine. ''Hundreds
of people across the spectrum -- fishermen, housewives, schoolteachers,
political leaders -- are united by an issue for the first time.''

Various Pentagon officials have insisted that the Vieques war-games theater
cannot be duplicated elsewhere and its loss would result in substandard
training for American forces. But Mr. Berrios, 60, a scholar in international
law who was educated at Harvard and Oxford Universities and Georgetown Law
School, cites arguments to the contrary from authorities like Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, the retiring New York Democrat who trained here as a young
sailor and was first fascinated by the power politics of Washington and San
Juan. Mr. Berrios even cites the marginal note of sympathy for Vieques from
Mr. Clinton, disclosed by the White House in response to a letter from Mr.
Berrios. ''This is wrong,'' Mr. Clinton jotted in describing the ''colonial
commonwealth'' status of the island.

Here on Yellow Beach, with the guns safely silenced, Mr. Berrios clings to
that jotting more than to the latest formal proposal in the administration's
effort to solve this onetime backwater problem that now occupies radar
screens far beyond the Navy's beachfront post.

''Are the planets in alignment?'' Mr. Berrios wondered with a big smile. He
questioned whether Mr. Clinton would stand by his personal inclination in the
face of Navy complaints and resistance. ''If they agree to leave with not one
more bomb to fall, we win,'' Mr. Berrios said, snug in his protest camp. ''If
they arrest us, they lose.''

From: Judith Lang & Lynton Land [JandL@rivnet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:27 AM
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Vieques: a more balanced news account from the Associated Press

Hello everyone,
Here's a more balanced news account from the Associated Press. Note the concluding remarks about alternate use of Elgin Airforce Base in Florida for air-to-ground bombing runs and of beaches in North Carolina for amphibious assaults.

Judy Lang

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Clinton today ordered the
military to stop using a Puerto Rican island as a live-bombing range unless
residents there allow the practice to continue, and to phase out all use of
the island for military training over the next five years. Emphasizing the
importance of the island to military readiness, the Clinton administration
dangled a $40 million incentive to try to persuade Vieques' 9,000 civilians,
who
are U.S. citizens, to let the training continue. "I understand the
longstanding
concerns of residents of the island," Clinton said in a statement that also
stressed the importance of military training carried out at Vieques since
1941.

"These concerns must be addressed, and I believe our plan will do so in a
constructive manner," said Clinton, whose decision was based on the
recommendations of Defense Secretary William Cohen. However, Puerto Rico
Gov.
Pedro Rossello rejected the decision as "unacceptable for the people of
Puerto
Rico and the people of Vieques." "It doesn't fulfill the expectations we
have
for the people of Vieques," he said, objecting to any possible renewal of
live-bombing on the island. Rossello has called for the Navy to withdraw.

The
Navy operations have been a target of occasional protests and legal actions
since the 1960s, but the controversy erupted into a crisis after a civilian
security guard was killed last April. The Navy then suspended training on
Vieques but has sought a way to resume it as soon as possible. The Navy has
argued that the island was irreplaceable in preparing U.S. forces for
combined
land, sea and air operations on the Atlantic side of the world. The island,
which has been a key training ground for the ships and aircraft of the
Navy's
Atlantic Fleet since World War II, offers "the most rigorous, realistic
training" facility available, Navy Secretary Richard Danzig said. In a
letter to
Clinton outlining his recommendation on Vieques, Cohen said operations there
are
"a vital part of training our combat forces." "I also firmly believe that
all
U.S. citizens, whether they live in states or other jurisdictions, must make
sacrifices in order to support the strong national defense that preserves
the
freedoms we all enjoy," Cohen wrote. "There is not a single part of our
country
that doesn't make some adjustments or accommodations to sustain the presence
of
the military." Under the administration's plan, the number of training days
would immediately be cut in half from 180 to 90 per year. "Within the five
years, the Navy will develop alternatives to the training, and all training
will
terminate unless agreed to by the Vieques people and the Navy," Danzig
said. A resumption of training "would be accompanied by" a $40 million
community economic development program, he said. Early reports of the
decision sparked a celebration among protesters on Vieques, some of whom
have camped on the beach for nearly six months. "If this is true, then it's
a triumph of the people," said Ismael Guadelupe, a local fisherman who is
among the protest leaders. "But the triumph will be complete when they turn
over all the lands, clean up the contamination and compensate the people of
Vieques for all their years of suffering." The first military force affected
by
the decision, the USS Eisenhower battle group, was being sent to the
Mediterranean without training on Vieques. Danzig said other battle groups
also
would be affected until training can resume on the island. The Marines with
the
Eisenhower, instead of using Vieques, will conduct an amphibious assault on
the
North Carolina coast, and Navy strike aircraft will conduct air-to-ground
bombing runs at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., officials said earlier. The
recommendation means the Eisenhower battle group likely would deploy to the
Mediterranean Sea in February at a substantially reduced state of combat
readiness, several officials said. The Navy has felt strongly that its
carrier
battle groups must be allowed the realistic training that Vieques provided
to be
ready for combat, since they may be called on to begin actual combat once
they
arrive on station. Navy officials had insisted that Vieques is the only
Atlantic
Coast site available for such training.

From: Jim_Maragos@r1.fws.gov
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 3:45 PM
To: Les Kaufman
Cc: Doug Fenner; coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Subject: Re[2]: Re[2]: Could bombing benefit Vieques reefs?

Les,
Thank you for your thoughts, but I feel there may still be some possible misconceptions regarding the recent military history at Johnston Atoll, and the military's impact on its coral reefs. Besides serving as an example of positive contemporary military stewardship, the early military presence at Johnston should also serve as a lesson on how NOT to manage an important coral reef, one that was already established as a protected area, BEFORE military involvement. First, let me review the history of the atoll as a means of explaining my points.

The atoll was discovered by American ships in 1796 and 1807 and at the time it appeared to have never been inhabited. In 1856, the U.S. claimed the atoll under provisions of the Guano Act, and guano was removed by an American company over the next 50 years. In 1922 the atoll was visited by the Biological Survey of the Department of Agriculture and the Bishop Museum of Hawaii. As a result of the scientific studies, in 1926 Johnston was first established by Executive Order 4467 for use by the Department of Agriculture as a refuge and breeding ground for native birds. Years later Johnston and other similarly designated U.S. islands were established as National Wildlife Refuges under the administration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

With the threat of war on the distant horizon, Executive Order 6935 in 1934 placed Johnston Atoll under the administration of the U.S. Navy, but retaining earlier provisions for the Refuge. Jurisdictional responsibilities over the atoll were clarified in 1976 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Defense Nuclear Agengy signed a Memorandum of Agreement granting the Service jurisdictionand responsibility over the atoll's natural resources. By recent agreement with the base commander, the extent of Refuge jurisdiction has been extended to include all waters within 3 nautical miles of emergent land and all coral reefs exposed at low tide. Commercial fishing is not allowed in the refuge.

In 1936 the Navy developed a seaplane base and later an airstrip and refueling facility. In 1941 Executive Order 8682 established a Naval Defensive Sea and Airspace Reservation around Johnston and other nearby U.S. atolls. The original atoll was extensively modified by dredging ship channels and seaplane landing areas and constructing new islands and enlarging existing islands. Over the years the dredging and filling operations destroyed 400 hectares of coral reefs and damaged an additional 2,800 hectares due to sedimentation from military cutterhead dredging operations. Coral recovery has been noticeable but only along the submerged faces of the channels and basin. No recovery has occurred on reefs converted to land and very little recovery has occurred on the deep sandy floor of the dredged channels and basin. At best only 10% of the originally damaged reefs have recovered.

After the Vietnam War, thousands of drums of the defoliant Agent Orange were stacked along both sides of the jointly used military and commercial runway for many years. This was probably the worst place in the world to be storing the agent, and the rusting drums released unknown quantities of hazardous and toxic chemicals into the groundwater, and by extension onto adjacent reefs. Subsequent chemical testing has revealed extensive dioxin contamination of groundwater and soils. Eventually the specially designed incinerator ship Vulcanus was contracted to remove the drums and incinerate the agent in the open sea. I'm not sure about the present state of dioxin contamination.

During the late 1950s and until 1962, high altitude nuclear testing was carried out at Johnston, and in 1962 three rockets accidentally exploded on or above Johnston Island, scatttering plutonium particles over an area of several square miles. The 1975 cleanup collected most of the contaminated soils on land and then stockpiled them in a 43-acre fenced area which I believe remains to this day. There may have been subsequent projects to remove the contaminants. Adjacent reefs may still be contaminated with plutonium and I'm not sure whether land areas outside the fenced enclosure are still exposed to low level radiation. Plutonium has a "half-life" of about 29,000 years.

In 1970 U.S. Army chemical munitions (explosively configured nerve and mustard agents) in Okinawa were transported to Johnston atoll with many stored in aluminum warehousing near the shoreline subject to salt air and tropical, humid conditions. Again from an environmental standpoint, a worst place in the world could not have been chosen, and it should come as no surprise that many of these munitions began to deteriorate and leak before they were later moved into underground igloos. The rapid deterioration of these munitions was the principal reason for establishing JACADS (Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System), the first of a specially designed incinerator to destroy the munitions on a large scale basis. Later in 1990, despite protests from many Pacific island nations, the U.S. also agreed to transport additional chemical munitions halfway around the world from Germany to Johnston to be destroyed. After all munitions are destroyed, JACADS is to be dismantled and the atoll relinquished to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Since the late 1970s, the military has steadily improved their capacity to minimize damage to the atoll's natural resources. They have worked closely with other on-site conservation agencies and have funded important environmental research and long range monitoring, including marine life and seabirds. However, they do this in part because they are required by law to do so and in part because many others are looking over their shoulders, or in the case of the Service, working side-by-side them.

However, the track record of the military before the mid 1970s at Johnston leaves much to be desired, as can be surmised from above. Notwithstanding the excellent degree of cooperation and stewardship now over natural resources, it does not cancel out the thousands of hectares of reef areas that were destroyed and which will not recover. Furthermore, much of the damage could have been avoided with the imposition of reasonable precautions. Nor can it compensate for the unreasonable exposure of radionuclides, nerve agents and chemical defoliants to the atoll's ecosystem and inhabitants. Indeed it is fortunate that much of the reef at Johnston is pristine and spectacular, but this is not due exemplary military planning. It is due to the fact that these reef areas were probably always in excellent condition and were out of "harms way" during the massive military dredging and filling of the early 1960's.

So what lessons can be learned, wither the reefs of Vieques? I'd say that shared responsibility over the reefs is a must. The military should be involved in order to assess and implement resoration actions and fund long range monitoring and cleanup programs, just as they are doing at Johnston. However, they should also be working, if not sponsoring, the activites of management and conservation agencies which have responsibilities over the coral reefs and other natural resources. Some experienced environmental attorneys should also review the actions of the military at Vieques to determine whether they are in compliance with international environmental conventions and several U.S. environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Superfund Act, other federal acts, the new Executive Order protecting coral reefs, and applicable Puerto Rican statutes. If not in compliance, then the responsible parties can be compelled to do so, including the cessation of bombing and other damaging actions until corrective actions are taken.

I make these observations as someone completely unfamiliar with the Vieques situation, and hopefully actions are already underway that will lead to a sustainable and reasonable future for the reefs of Vieques.

James Maragos

Note: Maragos had Kaufman's message in his original message. Kaufman's message appears above.

Military bombing activities in the vicinity of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico and its effect on the coral reefs.

A Coral-List Server Discussion Thread