[Coral-List] Removal of Oculina varicosa from the list of 83 corals

Heather Reed heather_reed at juno.com
Tue Apr 6 13:49:26 EDT 2010


I agree with Colin Ford, Oculina is rare here in the Florida panhandle but
has occurred mostly in the seagrass beds.  

  If Oculina is removed from the list then the seagrass beds cannot be
protected from impact. I am not sure if NMFS has taken this information into
consideration but TWO habitat ecosystems can be protected instead of just
one.  There really should be a seagrass protection act. If anyone knows how
to start that process, please let me know, I will be happy to spearhead the
effort because we are losing our seagrass and soon our rare oculina coral
due to increased development. 

Heather Reed  Heather_reed at juno.com
Pensacola, Florida 













Message: 7
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:20:53 -0400
From: Colin Foord <colin.foord at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Removal of Oculina varicosa from the list of
	83	corals proposed for ESA listing...
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID:
	<r2k5a4bdc201004060820s7df63186wb13bbd4340af1db7 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Could someone from the NMFS elaborate on why *Oculina varicosa* was removed
from the original list of 83 coral species recommended by the CBD for ESA
listing?

If it was successfully petitioned along with the other 82, then I am
confused.  I thought that these sorts of decisions were made after the
initial comment period ended, and based on previous responses on Coral List
"They (NMFS) cannot change the list or ignore the request, or add to the
list".

Thanks,
Colin Foord
Miami, FL


Heather Reed 
Project Manager
The City of Gulf Breeze Deadman's Island Restoration Project 
Ecological Consulting Services Inc
38 S Blue Angel Parkway #346
Pensacola FL 32506
850-416-7008
850-346-2073 (cell preferred)


-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of
coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:10 AM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Coral-List Digest, Vol 20, Issue 6

Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to
	coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

You can reach the person managing the list at
	coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: tanker grounds on GBR (Greg Challenger)
   2. Re: Strobes blind seahorses? (Tupper, Mark (WorldFish))
   3. Re: Strobes Blind Seahorses (yusri yusuf)
   4. ***SPAM*** RE:  Strobes blind seahorses? (Garnet Hooper)
   5. Petition for 82 corals (vassil zlatarski)
   6. Ships groundings in GBR and Egypt's Ras Mohammed (Medio, David)
   7. Re: Removal of Oculina varicosa from the list of 83	corals
      proposed for ESA listing... (Colin Foord)


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

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:50:00 -0700
From: Greg Challenger <gchallenger at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] tanker grounds on GBR
To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <BLU107-W7A58AD136F2D2275DA7C8B3190 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


 

The vessel was a cargo carrier (coal carrier).  A tanker carries liquid
product.   The bunkers (heavy fuel for running the ships' engines) total
about 300K gallons, which is pretty average for a cargo carrier fuel tank
and far below the up to several hundred thousand tonnes (over 20 millions
gallons) of fuel carried by large fuel tankers.  Given the low dissolution
of heavy fuels and the specific gravity of less than water, the scope of oil
and coral contact would likely be limited under any scenario without
substantial dispersion (storm waves) and/or particulate adsorption.
However, it is not a trivial amount of fuel.  The corals will likely suffer
most from physical damage and sedimentation or burial limited to the
footprint of the grounding and wreck removal area as opposed to a widespread
problem from chemical exposure.  Factors that could affect oil and coral
interactions include water depth and potential exposure at low tide in
addition to dispersion or submerged oil. 
  

 

The winds are easterly but the nearest shoreline is approx. 70 kms to the
west which is a fair distance to go, by which time HFO could be mostly
widely scattered and weathered tarballs.  Biota such as seabirds or mammals
are most at risk from HFO on the water surface.  

 

It looks like I may be headed there shortly and will revert with more if
possible. 

 

Regards,

 



Greg E. Challenger, M.S.

Principal Marine Scientist

Polaris Applied Sciences, Incorporated 12509 130th Lane NE Kirkland, WA
98034 

425-823-4841 425-823-3805 fx 206-369-5686 cell visit us at:
www.polarisappliedsciences.com

 




 
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:24:04 -0500
> From: mechers at gmail.com
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] tanker grounds on GBR
> 
> I'm surprised this hasn't been posted here yet, but it looks like bad
news.
> 
>
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AUSTRALIA_COAL_CARRIER?SITE=OHALL2
&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do
> something about its width and depth."
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
 		 	   		  

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:43:35 +0800
From: "Tupper, Mark (WorldFish)" <M.Tupper at CGIAR.ORG>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
To: "Melbourne Briscoe" <Mel at briscoe.com>,
	<coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID:
	
<DF5BEA7FB371DE43871F62A1B56901D70303583E at GOBY.WORLDFISH.CGIARAD.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Mel,

I completely agree that this sort of public outreach, i.e. answering
questions that the public is likely to ask, is on-topic for Coral-L.
However, I can't help wondering why there are currently 10 posts on blind
seahorses for every post about the recent ship grounding on the GBR, which
seems to me a much more serious and immediate problem worth discussing on
this listserv...

Best,
Mark


Dr. Mark H. Tupper
Scientist - Coral Reefs and Reef Fisheries
The WorldFish Center
Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines


-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov on behalf of Melbourne Briscoe
Sent: Sat 4/3/2010 9:07 PM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
 
Thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to this query. It is
important that the knowledgeable scientists offer their input in these
public-related issues; this is the kind of thing the public really cares
about, and letting them live on an urban myth is not helpful to them or to
the science. 

 

I believe the mean/median/modal response to my query was: there is no
specific science to support the blinding statement, but there is plenty of
anecdotal and behavioral evidence to suggest that continued strobe
photography and other interruptions cannot possibly be helpful, is surely
not neutral, and is likely harmful to the seahorse, if only to interrupt
their foraging and provide some additional stress to their environment. 

 

So the message to the photographers is almost identical - be judicious and
careful in your use of strobes, and in your photography in general - but the
reason is more one of avoid stressing the animal, not a made-up reason about
blinding the little guy. I'm OK with this.

 

I'm sorry a few posters on this topic felt it was off-topic for this board.
Perhaps the on-topic version of the question would have been: is it
important and appropriate for working scientists to engage in public
communications? Should scientific errors and misinformation in the media and
public domain be addressed and corrected by scientists?

 

Mel Briscoe

(retired from Woods Hole, NOAA, and ONR, now at Ocean Leadership)

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list



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

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:38:01 +0800
From: yusri yusuf <yusri.yusuf at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes Blind Seahorses
To: "David M. Lawrence" <dave at fuzzo.com>
Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID:
	<m2wc41a50f91004052138gc65cbc6dw63c0881b3f46fb38 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,
yup there're probably millions of seahorse in the ocean and aquarium,
but there're only probably 5 pygmy seahorse in Mabul Island, Sabah....
they're quite rare in that location, i think....
and every dive master in the island will take every divers to the same
seafan to look at the same seahorse and every diver will take at least
5 macro shot of the same seahorse.... and that particular seahorse
will be subjected to the same event everyday.... there might be some
effect to that particular pygmy seahorse due to this attention and if
there're adverse effect to this seahorse (death in the extreme case),
the attention to shift to other individual.....
I dont think this is the same case as the sunscreen effect.... as some
seahorse tend to be quite rare in some places..... and some species,
like pygmy seahorse do create a lot of interest and know some
diver/photographer do travel to these locations specifically just to
take picture of this single species....
Probably some wise behaviour/physiological scientists can come up with
some experiments to look at this and probably after that we can
further argue the scientific merit behind it


my 2 sen
tq

yusri




On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, David M. Lawrence <dave at fuzzo.com> wrote:
> C'mon Gene. ?If you looked at the populations of sea horses on heavily
> used dive sites, it could certainly be a problem. ?What we need are
> data, not snark.
>
> Dave
>
> On 4/2/2010 10:11 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote:
>> Somebody do the math..How many sea horses are there? How many divers
>> are using strobes? How many of those that use strobes photograph
>> seahorses? I suspect there may be .0000000000002 seahorses affected
>> give or take 10000000000. Maybe they should be listed as
>> threatened?Gene
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> ?David M. Lawrence ? ? ? ?| Home: ?(804) 559-9786
> ?7471 Brook Way Court ? ? | Fax: ? (804) 559-9787
> ?Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave at fuzzo.com
> ?USA ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| http: ?http://fuzzo..com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> "All drains lead to the ocean." ?-- Gill, Finding Nemo
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us." ?-- Pogo
>
> "No trespassing
> ?4/17 of a haiku" ?-- ?Richard Brautigan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>



-- 
Yusri Yusuf
Institute of Oceanography,
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Mengabang Telipot,
21030 Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia.
Tel: 609-6683163
Fax: 609-6692166
http://staff.umt.edu.my/~yusriyusuf/


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

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:50:16 +0000
From: Garnet Hooper <garnethooper at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Coral-List] ***SPAM*** RE:  Strobes blind seahorses?
To: <julian at reefcheck.org.my>, <sfrias_torres at hotmail.com>,
	<allison.billiam at gmail.com>, <dfenner at blueskynet.as>
Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov, mel at briscoe.com
Message-ID: <BAY146-w286F334099923339D00723CB180 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Dear Mel (and all),



I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I don't think this is as 
off-topic as many may have initially thought when you consider the pygmy
 seahorse. Due to the lack of data on pygmy seahorse species (e.g. 
Hippocampus bargibanti), they are described as "data deficient" in terms
 of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (addressing Gene's comment 
that "maybe they should be listed as threatended?"). These sea horses will
be of 
particularly interest to ReefCheck Malaysia as Several of the most 
commonly dived sites in East Malaysia (e.g. SeaVentures Mabul, Sibuan 
Island) have sea fans with known pygmy seahorses that the dive companies
 are aware of. This means that you literally get queues of divers with 
cameras waiting their turn at these fan corals to take pictures of the 
same pygmy seahorses. At SeaVentures, this is particularly regular as 
SeaVentures is a dive platform and it's only a few hundred yards of the 
main dive resorts on Mabul and hence this site gets dived by several 
groups every day. As seahorses are visual feeders, and as they've only
relatively recently been discovered, this could be 
of some importance locally. Especially as they
 are also very highly desired prizes for
 underwater photographers.  I think in this case not only should the 
effect on the eyesight of these seahorses be considered, but also the 
effect of the strobe and divers on their habitat - i.e. the fan coral. 
As with previous answers, I'm not suggesting strobes do blind seahorses,
 but there is the possibility in such cases, and the more likely 
possibility that this causes stress and reduces feeding efficiency.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that regular 
photography may have some sort of negative impact on the coral itself (i.e.
even the dive companies have noted the degradation in quality of 
the fan corals in
 comparison to others found in the vicinity over time since they found 
the pygmy seahorses). Yes, the fan
 coral gets degraded from bits being accidentally broken off by divers, 
but the health of the fan coral may also be being affected (e.g. less 
vibrant colour) - from the physical contact caused by camera equipment 
touching coral tissues (but not strong enough to break off branches) or 
by the flash from the strobe, perhaps? is there any research on this? At
 this point I have to mention that many underwater photographers are 
very careful about ensuring they don't damage their subjects or their 
habitats, and there are guidelines for underwater photographers to this 
effect. I also have to mention that certain local dive companies who show
their clients the pygmy seahorses do try and restrict the effect by
requesting that divers only take 1-2 photos per person (although it's
obvliously easy for divers to get carried away), and several of the fan
corals are at depths where bottom time is restricted (30-40m). However, some
damage will inevitably occur, and not all impacts 
are known/recognised.   



I felt I had to respond in this case as the trend of responses was 
veering towards "the level of impact is so small it's unimportant so 
it's a ridiculous waste of time considering it". I would like to remind 
those who submitted such "glib" responses that as scientists we need to 
remember to take into account regional and species-specific importance 
of impacts. I am a marine ecologist working in the commercial world, and
 conduct impact assessments and monitoring studies for industries such 
as aquaculture, marine aggregate extraction (dredging) and renewables, 
and as part of that I also talk to the fishing industry. The response of
 the forum was disappointing in that I often hear similar responses 
regarding benthic marine habitats or fisheries - "there's plenty there, 
so any impact is obviously unimportant". In comparison to the surface of
 the Earth (510,072,000 km2), the surface area of the Great Barrier Reef
 (344,400 km2) is only 0.0067% - so is that unimportant (again, 
addressing Gene's stats)?? Maybe we should stop protecting that? Or any 
other smaller reef system as coral reefs cover an insignificant area 
(< 1%) of the Earth's surface... ??? No-one on this list is likely to agree
with those statements, but for someone unaware of the importance of coral
reefs (if there's anyone left who doesn't) they may be swayed by the
stats... 



Even if such questions are not be globally critical, only affect a very 
small percentage of local regions, and are not regarded as "cutting 
edge" science, they are obviously of interest to a number of people - 
and hence isn't the purpose of such forums the dissemination of 
information and purely to ask questions in case anyone knows any 
answers? I appreciate that the main aim of this forum is the linking of 
expertise in order to push forward the boundaries of scientific 
thinking, but the forum is also a way many people working in coral reef 
ecology and coral science (especially those in remote areas) can access 
academics and academic knowledge - a direct link to the experts in the 
field of coral science. And as the saying goes - "there's no such thing 
as a stupid question - just a stupid answer". Many of the responses were
 obviously of interest and very useful - but for those that weren't so 
helpful - please, even if you think such questions are stupid, they are 
obviously important enough to someone or them to ask, and hence it would
 be great if you could remember that. If you're not interested in the 
question, you have the option of just not answering it and even deleting it.
Many of us listers for whom the question bears no direct relevence often 
find the question and the answers interesting enough to read them.  

On the other hand, I also understand the need to prevent e-mailboxes being
filled with responses to what may be seen as "irrelevent" questions when
many listers may already have hundreds of emails a day..


However, I do think there is room for the occassional alternative question,
and 
forum members should not be deterred from asking questions that are 
important to them - even if they may only have local significance. After
 all, the forum is a fantastic resource, and of great importance to a 
wide range of members.



Kind regards,



Garnet Hooper Ph.D. 

Marine Ecologist


> From: Mel at briscoe.com
> To: 
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 09:07:46 
-0400
> Subject: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> 
>
 Thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to this query. It is
>
 important that the knowledgeable scientists offer their input in these
>
 public-related issues; this is the kind of thing the public really 
cares
> about, and letting them live on an urban myth is not 
helpful to them or to
> the science. 
> 
>  
> 
>
 I believe the mean/median/modal response to my query was: there is no
>
 specific science to support the blinding statement, but there is plenty
 of
> anecdotal and behavioral evidence to suggest that continued 
strobe
> photography and other interruptions cannot possibly be 
helpful, is surely
> not neutral, and is likely harmful to the 
seahorse, if only to interrupt
> their foraging and provide some 
additional stress to their environment. 
> 
>  
> 
>
 So the message to the photographers is almost identical - be judicious 
and
> careful in your use of strobes, and in your photography in 
general - but the
> reason is more one of avoid stressing the 
animal, not a made-up reason about
> blinding the little guy. I'm 
OK with this.
> 
>  
> 
> I'm sorry a few 
posters on this topic felt it was off-topic for this board.
> 
Perhaps the on-topic version of the question would have been: is it
>
 important and appropriate for working scientists to engage in public
>
 communications? Should scientific errors and misinformation in the 
media and
> public domain be addressed and corrected by 
scientists?
> 
>  
> 
> Mel Briscoe
> 
>
 (retired from Woods Hole, NOAA, and ONR, now at Ocean Leadership)
>
 
> _______________________________________________
> 
Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us
now

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

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 04:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: vassil zlatarski <vzlatarski at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Coral-List] Petition for 82 corals
To: Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <392666.70739.qm at web110716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1








Dear Coral-Listers,
?
I read with interest the extended message of Douglas Fenner.? Doug is well
known as very devoted?curator of?corals and?reefs.? With all due respect?to
a?friend of two decades, let me add some light in order to make the picture
clearer.
?
1. Yes,?for the preparation of the?Petition to List 83 (later 82) Coral
Species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?presented by the Center?for
Biological Diversity (CBD)?was used the?paper of Carpenter?and colleagues
(2008), in which 39?respected specialists?analyzed 845 coral species.?
However, the Petition itself?was written by only two CBD people, not-coral
specialists and it was never openly discussed?by specialists before
presented to the Secretary of Commerce.
?
2.? On August 7,?2004??Coral-List posted "Comments Needed on Federal ESA
Listing of Three Coral Species" by CBD Staff Attorney Brent Plater.?That
time the petition was for Acropora palmata, A. cervicornis and A.
prolifera.? We do not have many Aropora in Caribbean and it was
necessary?urgently to?enlighten the authors of that petition?(posting on
August 15, 2004)?that they are not three species, but two species and one
hybrid.??Not?for the first time CBD?treats corals?with lack of?professional
knowledge.
?
3.? The CBD?has on staff?21 lawyers, only 6 biologists, and no specialists
on reefs and corals.??How to be?considered the entire ecosystem and the
recent reef history???In CBD?was?forgotten that the?only lessons for the
reef evolution come from the past.
?
Dear Coral Friends, do you expect?a team of layers acting this way?to save
the reefs???Everybody in the Coral-List?knows how difficult is this task and
of course we have to do our best.??However, the goal?requires most efficient
usage of all knowledge and experience.? It?is not correct to start from the
lawyers offices and without?any discussion with specialists to?install a
petition?on the?railway of legal procedures where proper?cure is
not?possible.??Sorry, but these ideas that anybody can pick common chicken
or dog?and that everybody can make?petition for?ESA do not sound very
appropriate.? Who is paying for all this?? We and the coral reefs.? Please,
no personal attacks, no politics,?no undue financial expenses, and no push
for ill-founded actions.? Let?face the whole truth and?try what we were
discussing here?about the role of the scientists?for the coral reefs.
?
Hope you will?accept my respectful frankness. 
?
Cheers,
?
Vassil
?
Vassil Zlatarski
D.Sc. (Biology), Ph.D. (Geology)?
?

131 Fales Rd., Bristol, RI 02809, USA; tel.:????

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

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:24 +0100
From: "Medio, David" <MedioD at Halcrow.com>
Subject: [Coral-List] Ships groundings in GBR and Egypt's Ras Mohammed
To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Cc: "Medio, David" <MedioD at Halcrow.com>
Message-ID:
	<3A1BE8A818D04D46AA7E7594B424FBFAC1A1F3 at hubeu-mx-03.halcrow.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I am following with apprehension the disaster unfolding in Australia. I
am hopeful the authorities there won't (again) have to take Egypt as an
inspirational model on what to do when such irresponsible behaviour
leads to large scale reef damage. 

 

In the mid 90s GBRMPA 'congratulated' their Egyptian counterpart when a
cruise liner ran aground reefs in the Ras Mohammed National Park and
swiftly punished those responsible. It happened again last January when
a 40 m wide container ship tried (illegally) to engage a 60 m passage in
the Straits of Tiran.

 

Let us see how quickly and adequately the Australians are this time
round. 

 

Dr David Medio 
Associate Director, Environment 

Chief Marine Scientist
Halcrow Group Ltd, Arndale Centre, Otley Rd, Headingley, Leeds, LS6 2UL,
UK 
tel: switchboard +44 (0)113 2208220, direct line: +44 (0)113 220 8253,
mobile: +44 (0)773 919 0968 
fax: +44 (0)113 274 2924   email: mediod at halcrow.com
<BLOCKED::mailto:mediod at halcrow.com>              www.halcrow.com
<BLOCKED::http://www.halcrow.com/>  
________________________________________________________________________
_______ 

Halcrow   Sustaining and improving the quality of people's lives  
________________________________________________________________________
____ __
P Please do not print this e-mail and attachments unless absolutely
necessary 

 

 

 

Visit our website at http://www.halcrow.com
<BLOCKED::http://www.halcrow.com/> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are confidential, for the sole use 
of the intended recipient at the email address to which it has
been addressed and do not give rise to any binding legal 
obligation upon Halcrow companies unless subsequently confirmed 
on headed business notepaper sent by fax, letter or as an email 
attachment. Whilst reasonable care has been taken to avoid virus 
transmission, no responsibility for viruses is taken and it is 
your responsibility to carry out such checks as you feel
appropriate. Emails supplied are as found and there's no 
guarantee that the messages contained within the body of the 
email have not been edited after receipt. If you receive this 
email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete 
the message from your system.
Thank you.

Halcrow Group Limited. Registered office: Vineyard House, 44 Brook Green
London, W6 7BY. Registered in England and Wales, Number 3415971.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

 



This email has been sent from a Halcrow Group server. If originating from
the United Kingdom it has been sent by Halcrow Group Limited, a company
incorporated in England and Wales (company number 3415971) and having its
registered office at Vineyard House, 44 Brook Green, London, W6 7BY. Emails
originating outside the United Kingdom have been sent by the relevant
Halcrow Group company operating in the country concerned. For details see
www.halcrow.com/aboutus_companies.

The contents of this email are confidential and for the sole use of the
intended recipient at their email address. Emails to and from this account
may be monitored. Whilst reasonable care has been taken to avoid virus
transmission, no responsibility for viruses is taken and it is your
responsibility to carry out such checks as you feel appropriate. 

Emails supplied are as found and there is no guarantee that the messages
contained within the body of the email have not been edited after dispatch.
If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender immediately
and delete the message from your system.


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

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:20:53 -0400
From: Colin Foord <colin.foord at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Removal of Oculina varicosa from the list of
	83	corals proposed for ESA listing...
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID:
	<r2k5a4bdc201004060820s7df63186wb13bbd4340af1db7 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Could someone from the NMFS elaborate on why *Oculina varicosa* was removed
from the original list of 83 coral species recommended by the CBD for ESA
listing?

If it was successfully petitioned along with the other 82, then I am
confused.  I thought that these sorts of decisions were made after the
initial comment period ended, and based on previous responses on Coral List
"They (NMFS) cannot change the list or ignore the request, or add to the
list".

Thanks,
Colin Foord
Miami, FL



On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:50 AM,
<coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>wrote:

> Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to
>        coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. tanker grounds on GBR (EAH)
>   2. Re: strobes blind seahorses? (Douglas  Fenner) (suwan Pi)
>   3. Re: Strobes Blind Seahorses (David M. Lawrence)
>   4. Re: Blind seahorses (David M. Lawrence)
>   5. Re: Blind seahorses (Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia)
>   6. Strobes blind seahorses? (Melbourne Briscoe)
>   7. endangered species petition for 82 corals (Douglas Fenner)
>   8. Re: Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals (Jessica Craft)
>   9. Reef Restoration Job at the Dominican Republic (Diego Lirman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:24:04 -0500
> From: EAH <mechers at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Coral-List] tanker grounds on GBR
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Message-ID:
>        <h2sfb943efa1004050824kd0444915if384f4f97e236fdd at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I'm surprised this hasn't been posted here yet, but it looks like bad
news.
>
>
>
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AUSTRALIA_COAL_CARRIER?SITE=OHALL2
&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
>
>
> --
> "You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do
> something about its width and depth."
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 17:16:04 +0700
> From: suwan Pi <suwanpita at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] strobes blind seahorses? (Douglas  Fenner)
> To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <BLU120-W21C5FA62CDA88755C671EBD1B0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-874"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear coral friends,
>
> I also curious about the topic every times I see a photos took close-up at
> the organism's eye.
>
> My idea is, the underwater strobe's light is very strong, so it posible to
> harm organism particular when took at a close range.
>
> The idear of setting an experiment is quite a good try. So, why the one
who
> love taking photos do the experiment so we will know the truth.
>
> May be we can start by firing the light directly to our eyes repeatedly
and
> see how it effect to our eyes. If it still no effect, then we start with
> some organisms.
>
> Once, I took a night photos to a sleeping puffer. After the shot, the
> puffer swim away and hit an coral head. The fish had an injured face and
> lost it balance. I do not know how he would suffer and survive after we
> leaved, but I never took a close range or night photograph again.
>
> Cheers,
> Suwan Pitaksintorn
>
> > When I take a picture with a flash on my digital camera and I take it
> > on the reef in full sunlight in shallow water, it makes little
difference
> to
> > the photo. I suspect that full sunlight in shallow water is about as
> bright
> > as a flash. Further, I've never seen a warning in the instruction book
> for
> > a camera to not take a photo with flash closer than a certain distance
> from
> > a person. If it blinded a person or caused any permanent damage, the
> threat
> > of lawsuits would mandate a lot of warnings. If there is a solar
eclipse,
> > there are always many warnings not to look directly at the sun because
it
> > can damage your eyes. Looking directly at the sun surely focuses too
much
> > light on a small spot on the retina.
> > I know some aspects of goldfish vision that have been tested are quite
> > similar to us (the 3 color vision pigments), so my guess is that most
> fish
> > would react similar to humans, though as Keven points out, fish
> specialized
> > for night vision might have greater effects. Seahorses and relatives are
> > diurnal I believe.
> > I suspect this is an urban legend. But I agree with the others that
> > hard data is what would be needed to settle the question, and the things
> I
> > am saying are really just speculation. Charles seems to be on to
> something,
> > if fish in public aquaria don't go blind, then it is unlikely to cause
> that,
> > since they get plenty of flash photos taken of them.
> > Doug
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keven Reed" <reedkc at comcast.net>
> > To: "Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia" <julian at reefcheck.org.my>; "'Melbourne
> > Briscoe'" <mel at briscoe.com>; "'Coral-List'" <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> >
> >
> > > Dear coral-listers,
> > >
> > > Please note that we have gotten off the subject (Anthozoan
> > > biology/research and coral ecology). However, as an optometric
> physician,
> > > I'll offer a couple general comments about a vertebrate; eg, seahorse
> > > fish, having its retinal photoreceptor cells (rods & cones) temporally
> > > 'bleached'--nothing to do with coral bleaching/loss of zooxanthellae--
> > >
> > > The temporary blind spots of various colors we humans and other
> > > vertebrate animals see after the strobe goes off while aimed into our
> > > faces, represent the recycling time for the photopigment molecules in
> the
> > > outer segments of our retinal rod and cone cells to flip back and
forth
> > > between different cis and trans forms of isomers of our visual
pigments
> > > before future photons can trigger another chemical event to fire a
> neuron
> > > to the visual cortex of our brain, or the fish's brain. The ratio of
> rods
> > > and cones converging on a ganglion cell varies dramatically between
> > > daytime hunting fishes and deep sea fishes.
> > >
> > > Some terrestrial animals and some fishes have a reflective layer under
> > > their retina that humans do not, the tapetum lucidum. The tapetum
> > > improves night vision in low light levels via increased internal
> > > reflections in the posterior chamber of the eye much the way a
> starlight
> > > scope amplifies a low light signal. The tapetum is what gives that
> > > metallic sheen to fish eyes and is what you see reflecting back to you
> > > when your car beams or torch/flashlight catch a raccoon, deer or other
> > > nocturnal beast in their eyes at night.
> > >
> > > Having said all this, we should not equate a temporary bleaching, or
> > > afterimage spot, to blindness, or permanent retinal damage. Granted, a
> > > dark adapted fish or terrestrial animal will have a more prolonged
> after
> > > image, or temporary visual impairment before recovery than if the
> strobe
> > > goes off in shallow, sunlight water. I do not believe underwater
> strobes
> > > blind seahorses or any other creature's retina, and I look forward to
> any
> > > data that negates my hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Warmest regards,
> > >
> > > Keven
> > >
> > > Keven Reed, O.D.
> > > Orange Park, Florida, USA
> > > mobile: 904-505-7277
> > > office: 904-264-1206
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia
> > > To: 'Melbourne Briscoe' ; 'Coral-List'
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:24 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mel
> > > I only have anecdotal evidence, but some photographers have made the
> same
> > > comments to me. Would be interested to hear more evidence for or
> against.
> > > I
> > > am also a diving instructor!
> > >
> > > Julian Hyde
> > > General Manager
> > > Reef Check Malaysia Bhd
> > > 03 2161 5948
> > > www.reefcheck.org.my
> > > Follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/rcmalaysia
> > >
> > > "The bottom line of the Millenium Asessment findings is that human
> > > actions
> > > are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the
> > > environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain
> future
> > > generations can no longer be taken for granted."
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Melbourne
> > > Briscoe
> > > Sent: Monday, 29 March, 2010 2:55 AM
> > > To: Coral-List
> > > Subject: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> > >
> > > I'm hearing in several diving forums that repeated use of strobes in
> > > underwater photography can blind seahorses. Is this based on evidence
> (if
> > > so, what?), or is it speculation and the precautionary principle at
> work?
> > >
> > > Thanks -
> > > Mel Briscoe
> > > Consortium for Ocean Leadership
> > > and diving instructor
> > > ____________________________
> > > Sent from my HTC TouchPro 2
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> ????????????????????????? ?????????????? ??? Windows Live Hotmail ???
> https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:47:45 -0400
> From: "David M. Lawrence" <dave at fuzzo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Strobes Blind Seahorses
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Message-ID: <4BB6BA61.4000302 at fuzzo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> C'mon Gene.  If you looked at the populations of sea horses on heavily
> used dive sites, it could certainly be a problem.  What we need are
> data, not snark.
>
> Dave
>
> On 4/2/2010 10:11 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote:
> > Somebody do the math..How many sea horses are there? How many divers
> > are using strobes? How many of those that use strobes photograph
> > seahorses? I suspect there may be .0000000000002 seahorses affected
> > give or take 10000000000. Maybe they should be listed as
> > threatened?Gene
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
>  David M. Lawrence        | Home:  (804) 559-9786
>  7471 Brook Way Court     | Fax:   (804) 559-9787
>  Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave at fuzzo.com
>  USA                      | http:  http://fuzzo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> "All drains lead to the ocean."  -- Gill, Finding Nemo
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us."  -- Pogo
>
> "No trespassing
>  4/17 of a haiku"  --  Richard Brautigan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:54:39 -0400
> From: "David M. Lawrence" <dave at fuzzo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Blind seahorses
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Message-ID: <4BB6BBFF.5020806 at fuzzo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I'm not sure I'd use the adjective "scientific" with respect to this
> particular brand of arrogance.
>
> Dave
>
> On 4/2/2010 12:29 PM, Bill Allison wrote:
> > and so scientific arrogance trumps outreach and public concerns.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Roy Ducote<scubadivingdoc at yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Gene hit the nail on the head. This subject belongs with the sunscreen
> >> subject. On a discussion board devoted to the most insignificant topics
> that
> >> waste time, energy, and bandwidth.
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
>  David M. Lawrence        | Home:  (804) 559-9786
>  7471 Brook Way Court     | Fax:   (804) 559-9787
>  Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave at fuzzo.com
>  USA                      | http:  http://fuzzo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> "All drains lead to the ocean."  -- Gill, Finding Nemo
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us."  -- Pogo
>
> "No trespassing
>  4/17 of a haiku"  --  Richard Brautigan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 13:14:24 +0800
> From: "Julian @ Reefcheck Malaysia" <julian at reefcheck.org.my>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Blind seahorses
> To: "'Roy Ducote'" <scubadivingdoc at yahoo.com>,
>        <Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <00c601cad2ec$88252150$986f63f0$@org.my>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> See my response to Gene. Sorry to be wasting your time.
>
> Julian Hyde
> General Manager
> Reef Check Malaysia Bhd
> 03 2161 5948
> www.reefcheck.org.my
> Follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/rcmalaysia
>
> "The bottom line of the Millenium Asessment findings is that human actions
> are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the
> environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future
> generations can no longer be taken for granted."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Roy Ducote
> Sent: Friday, 2 April, 2010 11:53 PM
> To: Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Blind seahorses
>
> Gene hit the nail on the head. This subject belongs with the sunscreen
> subject. On a discussion board devoted to the most insignificant topics
> that
> waste time, energy, and bandwidth.
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 09:07:46 -0400
> From: "Melbourne Briscoe" <Mel at briscoe.com>
> Subject: [Coral-List] Strobes blind seahorses?
> To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <814078A6EBA24DD0BFE8E9887028C2EE at GATEWAY832GM>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to this query. It is
> important that the knowledgeable scientists offer their input in these
> public-related issues; this is the kind of thing the public really cares
> about, and letting them live on an urban myth is not helpful to them or to
> the science.
>
>
>
> I believe the mean/median/modal response to my query was: there is no
> specific science to support the blinding statement, but there is plenty of
> anecdotal and behavioral evidence to suggest that continued strobe
> photography and other interruptions cannot possibly be helpful, is surely
> not neutral, and is likely harmful to the seahorse, if only to interrupt
> their foraging and provide some additional stress to their environment.
>
>
>
> So the message to the photographers is almost identical - be judicious and
> careful in your use of strobes, and in your photography in general - but
> the
> reason is more one of avoid stressing the animal, not a made-up reason
> about
> blinding the little guy. I'm OK with this.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry a few posters on this topic felt it was off-topic for this
board.
> Perhaps the on-topic version of the question would have been: is it
> important and appropriate for working scientists to engage in public
> communications? Should scientific errors and misinformation in the media
> and
> public domain be addressed and corrected by scientists?
>
>
>
> Mel Briscoe
>
> (retired from Woods Hole, NOAA, and ONR, now at Ocean Leadership)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:29:27 -1100
> From: "Douglas Fenner" <dfenner at blueskynet.as>
> Subject: [Coral-List] endangered species petition for 82 corals
> To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <23DF1380FB524732A99E5ACC1077C752 at DOUGLASFENNER>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Coral-listers,
>     I'd like to try to clarify a few things about the petition to list 82
> species as endangered.  This may get a bit long, so if you're not
interested
> don't read it.
>     First, much of the petition was based on a paper published in Science
> magazine by a group of scientists assembled and led by Dr. Kent Carpenter
to
> assess the conservation status of all the reef corals of the world, using
> the IUCN Red List criteria.  Separate groups were assembled for the
> Caribbean/eastern Pacific fauna, and the Indo-Pacific fauna.  I was part
of
> the group evaluating the I-P species.  We tried hard to gather together
all
> the information we could, to do this.  Kent is a prof. at Old Dominion
Univ.
> and with IUCN, and after the Science paper came out, the information was
put
> on the IUCN Red List website.  The CBD used material that was from the
> online material that went with the Science article, and/or from the IUCN
web
> site as a source of information for their petition, which was their
choice.
>  That was only part of the petition.
>     So the original source of the information was the work of the group of
> scientists that led to the Science paper, which has citations to the
> original sources of the information it was based on and describes the
> process.
>     As with every scientific endeavor, this was an attempt to move the
> state of knowledge ahead, but like everything else it is not perfect and
not
> final truth.  Rather, in this case it is the first time that there was
> enough shreds of evidence to put together a very first evaluation of coral
> species for endangered species status.  Everyone should know that much of
> the information we would have liked to have based it on does not yet
exist.
>  Hopefully more and more will in the future, and this will be revised and
> improved greatly in the coming decades.  But a fairly large group of
> scientists tried their best to base it on the best available scientific
> information, however nothing is perfect and we have a long way to go.
>     A second point is that the IUCN Red List and the U.S. Endangered
> Species Act listings are two completely different things.  IUCN is an
> international NGO I believe, while the U.S. Endangered Species Act is a
U.S.
> government law.  The IUCN Red List is international, it covers the whole
> world.  It is only advisory, it has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever.
>  Anyone can use it or ignore it as they wish.  The US Endangered Species
Act
> is a law that governs the actions of the US government, and it has legal
> teeth, there can be court action and penalties assessed for violations of
> the act.  The act specifies how the decision to list as endangered must be
> made, and the government officials that are working on that must follow
the
> law.  The government can be sued for not following this law.
>     An important point is since these two are very different, the criteria
> they use to determine whether something is endangered are quite different.
>  The IUCN Red List criteria were devised and revised by scientists who are
> experts in biological extinction, and are designed to work as well as
> possible for any species of any kind anywhere, and make it possible to use
> as many different kinds of data as possible.  So there is a series of
> criteria based on the decline of the population of a species, other
criteria
> based on the size of the species range, others based on the number of
> individuals in the species.  If you have one type of data but not another,
> you can use the criteria for the type of data you have.  The US Endangered
> Species Act is far more vague, saying something like "endangered in all or
a
> significant part of its range" and "a reasonable person would conclude it
is
> endangered."   (Keep in mind I'm no expert on the Act.)  Anyhow, net
effect
> is that IUCN criteria
>  could indicate a species is endangered, and the US Endangered Species Act
> not list it as endangered, or vice versa.  But an IUCN Red List finding of
> endangered could be one piece of evidence that could be looked at for
> considering listing under the US Endangered Species Act.  The petition
> clearly did cite the IUCN Red List status of these species as evidence.  I
> encourage you to go onto the IUCN web site and look at the Red List
> Criteria.
>     One important question which I thank Vassil Zlatarski for bringing up
> is the question of whether the CBD petition picked the right species
(Vassil
> was particularly concerned with the West Atlantic species I believe.)  The
> Act specifies that anyone can petition (we should check on whether they
need
> to be a US citizen or resident) for any species to be considered.  I don't
> know why Congress chose this process, but certainly no government agency
has
> the resources to consider all species (around 3 million species of
organisms
> have been described), and the writers of the act chose to put the power to
> chose which to petition in the hands of the people not the government.
But
> the government gets to decide based on the evidence in the petition and on
> hand in their files, whether a full review is warrented.  Then anyone and
> everyone (from any country) can provide info during the info gathering
> period.  This can be economic info about the consequences as well as
> scientific info o
>  n the species.
>     CBD clearly depended on the results of the Science paper that the
group
> of scientists produced, based on the IUCN Red List Criteria and all the
info
> that was gathered.  CBD has the right to choose any species they want, and
> any evidence they want.  But then so do you- you can choose any species
you
> want and write a petition today if you so choose.  Pick the common chicken
> or dog or anything else you like.  No doubt CBD is a professional in this
> arena, and knows that the species in a petition are likely to be accepted
> for full review only if the petition contains good evidence.  They chose
> evidence from the Science paper and IUCN as part of their evidence.
That's
> their choice.  They don't have to be coral experts to make that choice,
> anyone can make that choice or any other at any time.
>      If you don't like which species were chosen for the CBD petition,
> there is a lot you can do about it.  First, you can submit to NMFS (the
> government body that reviews petitions of marine species) evidence to show
> that the species petitioned are not in fact endangered as specified in the
> act.  If you have any information of that sort, I urge you to submit it.
>  Unlike Eugene, I really do believe this has not been decided, and it will
> be decided based on the evidence accumulated.  It may be that in previous
> rulings, people who didn't like the outcome then used as an excuse that
they
> say it was decided long before any information was accepted from anyone
else
> (whether it was or not), and in some venues in some countries including
the
> US that may have happened, I don't know.  But I really don't think that
will
> happen here.  I know a few of the people involved, and they are sincere,
> honest, hard working people who have had an enormous task thrust upon
them.
>    The second thing you can do is that if you think there were species
that
> are more endangered that were left out of the petition, then you can write
> your own petition.  You may even be able to find an NGO like CBD to do
that
> for you, based on your scientific information and expert opininon.  Heck,
my
> bet is that they don't know an Acropora cophodactyla from a Porites
> pukoensis, and if you know of a species that is endangered but isn't on
> their list, I bet they would love to know.  Fact is, you or anyone else
can
> petition for whatever you want.  Keep in mind that the better the info
> supporting it, the farther the petition will likely get with NMFS.  So I
> encourage you to do that.  But I also suggest that maybe we should all see
> how this first petition for 82 species goes and what the outcome is.  We
are
> all likely to learn a lot, and any petition later on will be based on a
> better understanding and more likely to succeed.  Further, the people in
> NMFS tasked with this are go
>  ing to be very busy indeed in the coming year trying to evaluate this
> petition, which is by far the largest number of species ever petitioned
for
> endangered species in the US, I believe.  Plus, a number of aspects of the
> petition are novel, and will be harder to evaluate, plus it may have huge
> implications for activities that produce greenhouse gases.  They have a
very
> enormous job ahead of them, and no matter what the result, it will be
> controversial.  They are in the hot seat and I don't envy them one bit for
> that.
>    Eugene makes a point about unintended consequences.  That's a good
thing
> to be reminded of, thanks Gene.  Indeed there are likely to be some.  I
have
> to live with the unintended consequence of CITES that it makes it harder
to
> do coral taxonomy, even if the taxonomy is in support of conserving reefs,
> because it is harder to move even small amounts of corals between
countries
> for scientific study (not commercial profit).  But CITES is very necessary
> to control trade in endangered species, and I support it.
>   There will surely be some unintended consequences if any of these
species
> are declared endangered.  That probably happens with a lot of other
species
> that have been listed, I don't know.  But, consider for a minute that
nearly
> everything that humans do has unintended consequences.  Almost every
> invention does.  How many unintended consequences are there of the
> automobile or the discovery of coal and oil?  Did anyone anticipate that
> they might (might) cause the death of most of the world's coral???  Surely
> not.  I'd argue that most of the species listed as endangered species got
> that way as unintended consequences of human action, whether it be the
> hunting of passenger pigeons or clearing of land for farming, or a myriad
of
> other things.  If anybody knows of a better way to stop species from going
> extinct, let's hear it.  The act does specify that NMFS must consider
> economic consequences of listing a species, so that if there are grave
> economic consequences the species does
>  n't have to be listed.  I don't know that it specifies how big the
> economic losses have to be, it may not.  It also specifies that whether
> existing protections are sufficient to protect the species must be
> considered.  If a species is already well protected, then it may not be
> listed under the act as endangered, even if it is endangered.
>      Sorry to go on so long.
>      Douglas Fenner
>
> The Science paper is:
> Carpenter, K. E., Abrar M., Aeby G., Aronson R., Bruckner A., Delbeek C.,
> DeVantier L., Edgar G., Edwards A., Fenner, D. and 29 others.  2008.  One
> third of reef building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate
> change and local impacts.  Science 321: 560-563.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:21:35 +0000
> From: Jessica Craft <Jcraft at coastalplanning.net>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Deadline for submitting comments on 82
>        corals
> To: Eugene Shinn <eshinn at marine.usf.edu>,
>        "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"        <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:
>
>  <BB562A9CD09F3D4FB8854BD78F49B8A50750ED45 at CPE-MBX1.coastalplanning.fla>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I don't understand this seemingly personal attack against Sarah and
others.
>  Please review Alina's last posting.  These people are following protocol
> dictated by law which now includes obtaining data or your "two cents".
This
> is the point at which, if you disagree with a proposed listing, you may
now
> provide scientific data which may lead to the conclusion of not listing a
> certain species.  The statement of "Who wants to waste their two cents?"
> seems completely ignorant to me.  It appears that some folks may want to
> protest this petition but, when presented with a means to do so, also
> protest the offer of hearing your side.  We don't want to waste our "two
> cents" by providing meaningful data, but do want to waste other's time
with
> meaningless complaints and badgering? My understanding is that this is not
a
> forum for presenting your political opinions, but to share scientific
data.
>  Has this changed?
>
> Jessica Craft
> Boca Raton, FL
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:
> coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Eugene Shinn
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 4:47 PM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Deadline for submitting comments on 82 corals
>
> Sarah the ending of your post "To provide your two cents on the
> information requested in the 90-day
> finding for any of the 82 species:
>
>
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a
90b1f
> ."
> is not very encouraging. Who wants to waste their 2 cents? Gene
>
> --
>
>
> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
> University of South Florida
> Marine Science Center (room 204)
> 140 Seventh Avenue South
> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
> <eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
> Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Diego Lirman" <dlirman at rsmas.miami.edu>
> Subject: [Coral-List] Reef Restoration Job at the Dominican Republic
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov, BEM2010 at lists.uncw.edu
> Cc: info at rsmas.miami.edu
> Message-ID:
>        <49738.129.171.102.70.1270489777.squirrel at webmail.rsmas.miami.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The Punta Cana Ecological Foundation in partnership with Counterpart
> International will be hiring a reef restoration coordinator to work on an
> Acropora propagation and restoration program in the Dominican Republic.
>
> The full posting is included here. Please feel free to disseminate and
> re-post.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Scope of Work:
>
> The Coral Reef Restoration Research Coordinator will serve as the main
> focal point and administrator of Acropora restoration activities in the
> Dominican Republic.  This person hired will oversee and maintain
> restoration activities underway in Punta Cana, Monte Cristi, and Sosua,
> and will be responsible for coordinating and supporting research efforts
> amongst local and international researchers and institutions.
>
> The main roles and responsibilities are as follows:
>
> ?Participate in a one week Coral Restoration and Propagation training
> course at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and
> Atmospheric Science in Miami, Florida, US
> ?Conduct coral reef surveys to assess the status, abundance, and
> distribution of wild Acropora populations and reefs and associated
> habitats
> ?Stabilize and expand Acropora coral nurseries by replacing faulty or
> degraded construction materials, constructing new frames or tables where
> appropriate, and installing underwater signage and marker buoys
> ?Conduct outplanting activities with nursery-reared corals
> ?Monitor the nurseries and collect data continuously following protocols
> outlined in the Coral Gardens Field User Manual
> ?Assist in the design and creation of educational and awareness materials
> on the importance and purpose of the coral nurseries
> ?Travel quarterly to Coral Garden sites in Sosua and Punta Rusia/Monte
> Cristi, providing training, oversight and direction to local coordinators
> in coral garden techniques and methodologies
> ?Support the Coral Restoration Research Fellowship Program, providing
> logistics and support to selected candidates
> ?Coordinate all travel and field logistics for site visits of restoration
> sites in the Dominican Republic by local and international scientists
> (University of Miami, University of Puerto Rico) and Counterpart
> International
> ?Prepare materials and give presentations as needed for annual coral
> restoration training and community outreach workshops
> ?Assist the Punta Cana Ecological Foundation marine coordinator in
> providing education and restoration activities for guests, homeowners,
> Puntacana Resort & Club employees, local fishermen, visiting universities,
> and volunteers.
>
> Required Skills:
>
> ?Bachelors degree in Marine Sciences at minimum
> ?Diving Certification and Experience
> ?Valid Driver's License
> ?Boat handling skills
> ?Data collection and Database management
> ?Analytical and quantitative ability
> ?Computer skills
> ?Knowledge of  GIS preferred
> ?Good identification skills for Caribbean coral reef  and fish species
> ?Language ability ? fluent in English, conversational in Spanish (at
> minimum)
> ?Ability to work long hours in the field
> ?Ability to pass physical exam
>
> Compensation:
>
> A competitive salary package will be offered according to the applicant's
> level of experience.  The successful candidate will be provided year-round
> lodging and meals amongst staff quarters on the property of the Punta Cana
> Resort and Club.  A benefits package will supplement the annual salary,
> covering vacation, bonuses, medical insurance, life insurance, and a
> pension fund, amongst other benefits.
>
> Application:
> Interested candidates please submit your CV to Maria Del Carmen Desangles
> (mdesangles at puntacana.com) and Dr. Diego Lirman (dlirman at rsmas.miami.edu).
>
> For any questions in regard to this position, please contact Dr. Lirman
> through email only
>
>
>
>
> --
> Diego Lirman, Ph.D.
> University of Miami
> Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
> 4600 Rickenbacker Cswy.
> Miami, FL 33149
> tel: 305-421-4168
> fax: 305-421-4600
> email: dlirman at rsmas.miami.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 20, Issue 5
> *****************************************
>


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

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 20, Issue 6
*****************************************




More information about the Coral-List mailing list