Eric Borneman coral controversy

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but what do I do with the rope.

Create a custom line of exercise equipment :lol:

 

[StevenPro]

I'm not ashamed at all. For reasons unknown to me, Eric has chosen to not answer any of my questions. Steven Pro didn't answer them and neither have you. I merely asked a few questions and I've not made any accusations.

Are these the questions you are referring to?

Number one, the email said the Laurie from NOAA had to be gone so Eric was given permission, if necessary, to remove corals from baskets provided they were on the list and provided they were less than 20cm in size. According to the emails, neither of these rules were followed as he had 40 corals greater than the 20cm limit.

Number two, I'm an accountant and I have the sense to not mix Atlantic corals with Indo-Pacific corals if the purpose is for coral disease research. One would have thought that Eric would have understood that.

Number three, Eric admitted that some of the protected corals were somehow at his house as opposed to the University of Houston or Reef Savers.

Number four, Why is Eric prohibited from entering Reef Savers facility?

Number five, the fact that the person who put up the web page is remaining anonymous doesn't affect my curiousness about this situation. Whistleblowers often prefer this mode of operation. It took almost 30 years for us to find out that Deep Throat was W. Mark Felt.

#1 The email from Lauri alleging that she directed Eric to take corals only under 20 cm comes nearly a year after the collection takes place and nearly a year after she asks him to inventory the corals including how many were over 20 cm. That makes no sense and sounds like CYA stuff to me.

#2 Eric didn't mix the Atlantic corals with Pacific. Read very carefully. It was Craig Watson that comingled most of the recalled corals with Pacific tridacnid clams. The reason given was he didn't have enough space to keep them separate and he also could not guarantee that Reef Savers didn't already contaminate them. Being positive they were not exposed to Pacific animals is a far cry from knowing they were contaminated.

#3 No they weren't. The skeletons from animals that had been lost during the course of the project were kept at his home.

Also, it is worth noting that Craig Watson had recieved the Truman Annex corals sometime before May 13th, 2005. Eric's tank was sabotaged sometime around April 16 of 2006, nearly a year later. People on various message boards were confusing the two events and attempting to link them.

#4 Don't know. Apparently things went bad between them.

#5 Everyone should know who this person is. She has not been shy about it.

 

[sihaya]

OK, my turn!!

1) One way to make sense of Lauri's email is that in it she talks about his "second trip." So MAYBE that inventory email was for his FIRST strip. But I don't know. I don't think the email is clear on that.... and I can't tell when the date of the last coral collecting trip was.

However, the thing that strikes me as interesting about Lauri's email is that she quotes a list serve post that was made before the inventory email was apparently sent. I think that's kinda curious.

2) Again, it doesn't matter if the corals were actually cross contaminated or not, because they had been housed at a commercial facility with Indo-pacifics (one that was not associated with UH or any other academic institution), there's NO WAY they could have assumed that the corals had NOT been contaminated. They were put in the clam tanks because there was no way to know if they were contaminated or not, so it didn't matter.

3) nothing to add

4) Good question... I don't think there's much (if any) info on that in the documents. I do hope I get more from NOAA soon. But keep in mind that it took 4 months for this response to get to me and "the rest" of the documents (if there are to be any more) were supposed to have come last week. FOIA is partly a waiting gain... so I guess we'll see.

5) This is a nice forum. You guys are intelligently debating the points. That's why I'm not being shy here.

 

[sihaya]

Btw... can anyone find anything that dates the *LAST* coral-collecting trip that was made?

Because the permits, taken together, seem to be valid all the way through 2005 and technically through 2006 (see permit 4 that expires on Dec. 31, 2006).

 

[Anonymous]

The Navy was required to relocate those corals, no one could have changed that. No one could have changed their status from relocate to go any where else. Not even the NOAA.
If someone applied for a permit to collect, they would know that the only corals they could collect were the ones that were not to be relocated.
They would know for sure the reason the corals were being held in that facility, to be relocated. they would know which corals they could take and which ones they could not take. No one would even know to apply for a permit without knowing that. You would not know that corals were required to be relocated and there would be corals too small to be relocated that you could apply for a permit to collect.
The corals required to be relocated, would not fall under your permit, and the person holding the permit would have to know that.

You would have to know why the corals were being held in that facility and you would have to know that they are required to be relocated and not available.

You would have to know that even the NOAA can't change the status of those corals.

If nothing was done wrong, the corals would still be in Houston.

 

[StevenPro]

The Navy was required to relocate those corals, no one could have changed that. No one could have changed their status from relocate to go any where else. Not even the NOAA.

Could you direct me to the regulation stating this?

Also, could anyone answer me this, if this is such a big deal, why is Eric listed as doing two current projects at the flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary?

http://www.flowergarden.nos.noaa.gov/sc ... jects.html

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/conops/do ... eyWest.doc

(24) In coordination with the FKNMS, the permittee shall complete at least 24 hours prior to work obviously impacting coral resources, all activities necessary to temporarily or permanently relocate these resources so that dredging activities may proceed.

temporarily or permanently relocate

I do not think the story is someone associated with some hobby is the real story.

I think the real story is why someone backed up a truck to a sanctioned holding facility and loaded up a lot of protected corals that were designated to be relocated. Corals that the Navy had paid to be collected, housed, and relocated, and no one said anything about it.

I'm trying to find the actual permit, not for some hobby, but the permit issued to the Navy. That will specify exactly what was to happen with those corals. I don't expect to find some clause that says relocate or use for experiments. I don't expect to find anything that says relocate to a pet warehouse in Houston.

 

[Anonymous]

Billy Causey wrote to Eric, You are responsible for returning natural resources that are the property of the US public.

 

[StevenPro]

I think the real story is why someone backed up a truck to a sanctioned holding facility and loaded up a lot of protected corals that were designated to be relocated. Corals that the Navy had paid to be collected, housed, and relocated, and no one said anything about it.

You make it sound like he snuck in like a thief in the night. He had a permit to take those corals,
http://www.opportunitylost.org/permit1.pdf

 

[StevenPro]

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/conops/documents/DAPermit-KeyWest.doc

(24) In coordination with the FKNMS, the permittee shall complete at least 24 hours prior to work obviously impacting coral resources, all activities necessary to temporarily or permanently relocate these resources so that dredging activities may proceed.

And, you think this specifies that corals over 20 cm are required to be relocated into the ocean?

 

[StevenPro]

I don't expect to find anything that says relocate to a pet warehouse in Houston.

The permit application says that explicitly,
http://www.opportunitylost.org/DC_250158.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

It does not matter.

The permit issued to the Navy will spell out exactly what was to happen to those corals.

If the permit says relocate and give away. If it specifies relocate only, which it will, then that's another matter.

 

[StevenPro]

The permit issued to the Navy will spell out exactly what was to happen to those corals.

If the permit says relocate and give away. If it specifies relocate only, which it will, then that's another matter.

Do you have a copy of this permit?

 

[Anonymous]

You make it sound like he snuck in like a thief in the night. He had a permit to take those corals,
http://www.opportunitylost.org/permit1.pdf

We will have to see.

All permits issued after the Navy's initial permit, will have to fall under the Navy's permit. It would not be necessary to specify sizes, types, in subsequent permits because that information would be in the initial permit released to the Navy.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't expect to find anything that says relocate to a pet warehouse in Houston.

The permit application says that explicitly,
http://www.opportunitylost.org/DC_250158.pdf

No it does not. It does not specify sizes, because it was a permit issued after the Navy's permit. The first permit, issued to the Navy, would spell out what was to happen to the corals. Any permits issued after that could not change that first permit.

 

[Anonymous]

Do you have a copy of this permit?

I'm trying to find the actual permit, not for some hobby, but the permit issued to the Navy. That will specify exactly what was to happen with those corals. I don't expect to find some clause that says relocate or use for experiments. I don't expect to find anything that says relocate to a pet warehouse in Houston.

Just said I'm trying to find it.

I will, and when I do I'll let you know. I'm sure it didn't tell the Navy relocate or send to some pet warehouse.[/quote]

 

[sihaya]

Also, could anyone answer me this, if this is such a big deal, why is Eric listed as doing two current projects at the flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary?

http://www.flowergarden.nos.noaa.gov/sc ... jects.html

Steven, what makes you so sure that everyone knows about this? Believe me, getting people who were involved in this project to talk about it is like pulling teeth.

This is why filing the FOIA request was the last resort. And even that has been an ordeal. For WHATEVER REASON, information on this project has remained largely buried and very hard to find since it apparently fell apart. And this is probably why nothing has come forth for the past two years.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't expect to find anything that says relocate to a pet warehouse in Houston.

The permit application says that explicitly,
http://www.opportunitylost.org/DC_250158.pdf

Lauri said in her email, I'm now feeling like we were mislead to believe that these corals were all going back to the University of Houston for research and a genetic bank development.

Did they know that reef savers is a pet warehouse?

Don't really matter.

Corals were taken from a government lab that were designated to be relocated under a permit issued to the Navy, so the Navy could meet their requirements to complete construction on a pier.

Was that legal or not?

Only the Navy's permit will tell.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the story is that federally protected corals were taken from a government facility, corals that were designated to be relocated, under federal law, to meet the Navy's requirements, and no one wants to talk about it.
Eric is just collateral damage.

 

[sihaya]

Interesting, I hadn't thought much about Navy's Permit... that shouldn't be too hard to get actually. I think you can usually get copies of permits even without a FOIA.