[Coral-List] Fwd: Bring Back the Gulf

Mon Aug 18 10:25:59 EDT 2014

Dear Ms. Quirolo,

In
response to your comments to me via Gene, I know that the federal government
has not designated offshore platforms as essential fish habitat (EFH).  The
point of the previous list-serve comment is that the Federal government SHOULD designate
them as EFH.  I thought I made that pretty clear. 

Then
you go on to make a number of statements that are misleading or not true: 

It
is not true that the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council
(GMFMC) wants the platforms removed. I spoke to GMFMC fishery biologist
 on (August 14, 2014) and he stated that GMFMC would prefer that
the platforms stay in the Gulf of Mexico not be removed. They want to designate
them as EFH, but they cannot.  The reason
is that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) would not recognize the designation and would
have them remove anyways. They did not just “dismiss” the offshore platforms as you
stated below. 

It
is not true that there are no hermatypic corals on offshore platforms. Nine
species of hermatypic coral are known to settle on offshore platforms; however,
they are not as common as ahematypic corals. Your comment suggests that hermatypic
corals must be present to qualify a substrate or habitat as a coral reef
ecosystem?  What about octocoral,
hydroids, gorgonians, sponges, tunicates, bryazoans, algae, and the multitude
of other coral reef invertebrates? Fortunately, the U.S. federal regulations do
not make that discrimination. 

You
state that the platforms allow for the proliferation of non-native
invasive  sp. Tubastrea. These organisms
are not invading the Flower Gardens. Tubastrea are not common at the Flower Gardens,
they are found to be cryptic and settle in crevices. They also display a preference
for vertical substrate such as platforms and dock pilings. They are not common
on the Flower Gardens and are not taking over the coral reef as you suggest.. Over
time and on platforms in stable, high-salinity water, we found that ahermatypic coral
can overgrow Tubastrea -  preferring the
horizontal transoms. 

You stated that, “G. toxicus*, associated with
ciguatera, has also been found on platforms”. Are you basing this statement on the one
publication on this subject by Villareal et al. 2002? Where they state, “Only
minor toxicity (<0.15 ppb) was noted in two of 20 great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) examined”. Please
note that ciguatera fish poisoning is rare in the northern Gulf of Mexico but
all the documented cases suggest that the fish responsible for the ciguatera
fish poisoning were caught adjacent to the Flower Gardens.

You commented that
the offshore platforms “aggregate fish, leading to overfishing”.
The attraction vs. production hypothesis is often used to dismiss the
ecological value of the platforms despite the numerous peer review publications
that point out the flaws of
the attraction vs. production
model. The attraction vs. production debate fails to assess  scleractinian corals, hydrozoans, octocorals
and gorgonians that are not supposed to be removed from the Gulf of Mexico - Magnuson Act (50 CFR 622.2). These
coral reef organisms have a more stringent protection status than red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus).  In addition, investigations into the attraction
and production properties of offshore platforms conveniently focuses on one
fish, such as red snapper and fail to recognize the large populations of
shallow water, reef dependent fish. Most of the platforms reside in an area
defined by thousands of square miles of murky seafloor largely absent of
natural coral reef areas.  The platforms are
producing obligatory reef fish communities that consist of Caribbean reef fish
such as angelfish (sp. Pomacanthidae),
surgeonfishes (sp. Acanthuridae)
damselfish (sp. Pomacentridae),
wrasses (sp. Labridae), filefish (sp.
Monacanthidae), spadefish (sp. Ephppidae), triggerfish (sp. Balistidae), and butterfly fish (sp. Chaetodontidae). It is neglectful to use
the attraction vs. production hypothesis to ignore the removal of platforms,
destroying millions of obligatory reef fish and billions of protected
invertebrates such as scleractinian corals, octocorals, hydrozoans, sponges,
and bryozoans. 

Your statement “But to compare them to coral reefs in
biodiversity is just not factually accurate”, suggests that somewhere in my previous blog comments I made
the claim that platforms possess the same or greater biodiversity as coral
reefs. I am guessing that you mean coral reefs in marine sanctuaries such as the
Flower Gardens or the Dry Tortugas.  I
would not have said something like that because the diversity of organisms on
an offshore platform is directly related to the regions salinity and
nutrient regime in the area. I would not compare hard substrate habitats
located on the Louisiana continental shelf to coral reefs such as the Flower
Gardens or those found in the Florida Keys.  The age of a platform also plays a role in the
composition of organisms that grow on the platforms and I know there is a difference in the biodiversity of a habitat
that’s been around for a couple of decades to one that’s been around for
thousands of years. I would not
claim that the biodiversity of invertebrates on offshore platforms are equal to
or greater than the Dry Tortugas or Flower Gardens because, among other things,
the salinity regime is less stable and these sanctuaries have been around much
longer.   

I did say that: ”there are
protected coral, octocoral, hydroids, etc attached to many of the existing
operating and idle structures and that the removal of offshore platforms
conflicts with the laws published in Sustainable Fisheries Act/Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“Magnuson Act”, 16 U.S.C.A.  §
1801, et seq.), Endangered Species Act (“ESA”, 16 U.S.C.A.Ch. 35, et seq.) and
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”, 42 U.S.C.A.  Ch.  55, et
seq.). “

In
the future, do not direct your comments to me through Gene. Please address me
directly. 

Best Regards,
Steve Kolian

> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:38:17 -0400
> From: dquirolo at gmail.com
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Fwd:  Bring Back the Gulf
> 
> Gene--in response to your latest.....
> There are no secrets regarding our analysis of the Rigs to Reefs
> decommissioning policies.  We encourage you and everyone to go to
> www.bringbackthegulf.org where you can download the book*  Bring Back the
> Gulf *in PDF or E-book at no cost; in the acknowledgments The Ocean
> Foundation and the Herbert W. Hoover Foundation are recognized.  Perhaps
> you should at least scan the book before making judgements.
> 
> Also, Steve Kolian is incorrect when he states that the rigs are Essential
> Fish Habitat; the Gulf and Caribbean Marine Fisheries Council dismissed
> that effort last year and they have also concluded that habitat is not
> limited in the Gulf.  The rigs were always intended to be temporary
> structures removed after their useful life.   The studies reported in the
> book show that the rigs attract bio-fouling communities, bivalves, sponges,
> barnacles, hydroids and algae, not hermatypic corals.  They do provide a
> substrate for the proliferation of non-native invasives such as *tubastrea.
> G. toxicus*, associated with ciguatera, has also been found on platforms.
> And of course they aggregate fish, leading to overfishing.  But to compare
> them to coral reefs in biodiversity is just not factually accurate.
> 
> As you noted, there are a lot more rigs in the Gulf than when you were
> involved and today they comprise 5% of all habitat in the Gulf of Mexico,
> creating the largest de facto artificial underwater system in the world.
> And thousands more are coming up for decommissioning in the next few years.
> The oil industry has managed to transfer liability for these so-called
> "Rigs to Reefs" deployments to the pubic *in perpetuity* for a one time
> donation.  This at a time when hurricane damage is leading to expensive
> maintenance and creating navigational hazards from lost rigs. Meanwhile,
> the oil industry has saved $92 million since 2009 on these "gifts" to the
> public. Some of us don't think that is equitable nor consistent with
> current efforts underway to restore the Gulf and wanted to bring attention
> to the subject.  Our book does just that at a time when Interior is
> reassessing this policy.
> 
> By the way, our recommendations in the book were endorsed by a list of
> respected conservation and public policy organizations, researchers and
> stakeholders, also listed at that website.  Gene, I don't expect we'll ever
> agree on this, so let's just agree to disagree.
> 
> All the best, DeeVon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> > "This was a six month grant to investigate this
> > topic and we've done our work and published our findings." So you are not
> > going to reveal who provided the money and the results they wanted to see?
> > umm. Gene
> >
> > On 8/13/14 12:00 PM, coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov wrote:
> > > This was a six month grant to investigate this
> > > > >topic and we've done our work and published our findings.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
> > ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
> > E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
> > University of South Florida
> > College of Marine Science Room 221A
> > 140 Seventh Avenue South
> > St. Petersburg, FL 33701
> > <eugeneshinn at mail.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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> DeeVon Quirolo
> 
> www.bringbackthegulf.org
> www.neighborsagainstmining.org
> www.reefrelieffounders.com
> www.reefreliefarchive.org
> www.sunshinestatecleanenergycoalition.org
> 
> You must be the change you want to see in the world.
> Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> We can do no great things; only small things with great love.
> Mother Theresa
> 
> The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics
> whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can
> dream of things that never were.
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> DeeVon Quirolo
> 
> www.bringbackthegulf.org
> www.neighborsagainstmining.org
> www.reefrelieffounders.com
> www.reefreliefarchive.org
> www.sunshinestatecleanenergycoalition.org
> 
> You must be the change you want to see in the world.
> Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> We can do no great things; only small things with great love.
> Mother Theresa
> 
> The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics
> whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can
> dream of things that never were.
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list