ZONA OESTE — Los trabajos de remoción de carga aceitada a bordo del buque encallado Jireh en la isla de Mona al oeste de Puerto Rico continuaron ayer lunes a cargo del Comando Unificado compuesto por la Guardia Costanera de los Estados Unidos, el Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales, la Junta de Calidad Ambiental de Puerto Rico y personal de respuesta de otras agencias federales y locales.

Al tiempo en que se trabaja para terminar de extraer el material contaminado de la barcaza -que transportaba mangos, botellas de agua, bloques de hormigón y bebidas carbonatadas- el Capitán de Fragata David Berliner, Comandante del Incidente de la Guardia Costanera de los Estados Unidos informó ayer que se consulta con un equipo de expertos ambientales para determinar el mejor curso de acción para la disposición final de la embarcación, tomando las medidas necesarias para proteger el medio ambiente en esta fase final de la operación.

Durante el fin de semana el personal y equipo especializado de Resolve Marine Group, Inc. -empresa contratada por el Comando Unificado para remover la carga aceitada, combustible y materiales peligrosos abordo del Jireh- logró alcanzar la cifra estimada de 470 toneladas de carga aceitada removida de la embarcación.

El Teniente Joel Ferguson, Jefe de Operaciones del Comando Unificado para el Incidente Jireh, dijo que aún falta por remover un 10 por ciento de la carga a bordo, en adición al agua contaminada dentro del compartimiento de carga. El buque encalló en la isla de Mona el pasado 21 de junio, y desde entonces los contratistas de las empresas Resolve Marine Group, Inc. y Clean Harbors han logrado remover de la embarcación unos 3 mil galones de diesel, 2 mil galones de agua aceitada y 55 barriles de materiales misceláneos peligrosos, tales como baterías, cilindros de gas, limpiadores, aerosoles y otros. Al día de hoy, los gastos operacionales del incidente se estiman en unos $6.5 millones de dólares.


Recurso: http://noticias.woratv.com/index/2012/07/31/expertos-discuten-disposicion-de-buque-encallado-en-mona/

Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
Published July 30, 2012

The Pacific Northwest may be the epicenter of U.S. coffee culture, and now a new study shows the region's elevated caffeine levels don't stop at the shoreline.


The discovery of caffeine pollution in the Pacific Ocean off Oregon is further evidence that contaminants in human waste are entering natural water systems, with unknown consequences for wildlife and humans alike, experts say.

Scientists sampled both "potentially polluted" sites—near sewage-treatment plants, larger communities, and river mouths—and more remote waters, for example near a state park.

Surprisingly, caffeine levels off the potentially polluted areas were below the detectable limit, about 9 nanograms per liter. The wilder coastlines were comparatively highly caffeinated, at about 45 nanograms per liter.

"Our hypothesis from these results is that the bigger source of contamination here is probably on-site waste disposal systems like septic systems," said study co-author Elise Granek.

The difference may be due to more stringent monitoring in more developed areas.

"Wastewater-treatment plants, for the most part, have to do regular monitoring to ensure they are within certain limits," added Granek, a Portland State University marine ecologist. Granek noted, though, that caffeine is unregulated, and so is not specifically monitored.

By contrast, for on-site waste-disposal systems, "there is frequently not much monitoring going on."

The big sewage plants may also be at an advantage because Oregon cities are relatively small. The plants don't have to process the sheer volume of waste associated with a major city such as Boston, which one study has found to be pumping fairly high levels of caffeine into its harbor.

"Contaminant Soup" Has Unknown Impacts

Hydrologist Dana Kolpin welcomed the new research, saying caffeine concentrations in water have been documented before but more often in freshwater than marine environments.

"Caffeine is pretty darn ubiquitous, and there is growing evidence that this and other understudied contaminants are out there,"  said Kolpin, of the USGS'sToxic Substances Hydrology Program in Iowa City, Iowa.

In our waste "there is a whole universe of potential contaminants including pharmaceuticals, hormones, personal-care products like detergents or fragrances, even artificial sweeteners."

Caffeine is something of a canary in a coal mine for elevated levels of human contaminants in water, said Kolpin, who wasn't part of the new study.

In other words, if caffeine's in the water, chances are there are other contaminants too.

"What does this mean?" he asked. "Aquatic organisms are getting hit with a soup of low-level contaminants.

"Are there environmental or human-health consequences from exposure to these compounds or different mixtures of compounds? Obviously that's the million-dollar question."

Caffeine and Cellular Stress in Animals

Caffeine has been documented in waters around the world, including Boston Harbor, Puget Sound, the Mediterranean, and the North Sea. It might persist for up to 30 days in marine waters, study co-author Granek noted.

But the stimulant's impact on natural ecosystems is unknown. Nonlethal effects may be invisible but could have repercussions up and down the food chain and from generation to generation.

Granek and colleagues have shown in lab experiments that caffeine at the levels found offshore does affect intertidal mussels, causing them to produce specialized proteins in response to environmental stress.

The levels found in the remote study areas, for example, "did cause these mussels to exhibit cellular stress," she said. "If we expose them to higher concentrations or longer terms, do we see changes in growth rates, or changes in reproductive output?" The team hopes to find out with future experiments.

Kolpin said some studies of other contaminants have shown more drastic effects, including one at a remote Ontario Lake, which concluded that estrogen from birth control pills can cause wild fish populations to collapse.

"With caffeine, we're not yet sure about its environmental effects," he said. "But it's a very nice tracer, even if it doesn't have a large effect, because in most parts of the world, you know that this is coming from a human waste source."

By J. EMMETT DUFFY

As the sun breaks the horizon, I sit in a wooden chair at the edge of the backreef, an eye on the weather horizon, gratefully sipping the first strong coffee and gauging what the day has in store. Soothed by the fresh breeze and the muffled thud of the surf on the reef, half-watching a lone frigate bird high overhead and a hermit crab lumbering past my bare foot through a miniature jungle of beach vines and flotsam, it feels like home. It’s my 14th trip to this speck of land at the ocean’s edge, and this has been my morning ritual for years, a rare quiet spot in the tumbling stream of modern life to let the mind unreel and reflect.

We are now fully shifted into Plan B mode. The social shrimps that we came searching for, that have dominated these reefs for at least 20 years, are gone. Scrambling to shift course, we put together a hasty plan to document the change quantitatively. Yesterday morning we began carrying out that plan, collecting 10 bags of coral rubble from the first of six reefs to be sampled and spending the afternoon in the rustic lab, sorting out our quarry. The diving is sublime — idyllic seascapes of coral boulders over brilliant white sand and turtle grass, swaying soft corals and rope sponges, mounds of finger coral in the bright shallows. Fish are plentiful, shoals of grunts and surgeonfish flowing over the reef contours, even a sea turtle foraging over the top of one reef. Back at the lab it’s a laborious process getting under the surface, into the little-known center of biodiversity within the reef structure. But we’re rewarded by a constant stream of small surprises: bizarre undulating flatworms, a rainbow-colored sea slug, a tiny octopus that flashes iridescent color changes like a hallucination. And then there is the abundance of small shrimp.

Today is another marathon. We sample two reefs, taxing work in the choppy weather and strong surge, inhale a hearty lunch prepared by our wonderful cook, Martha, and then switch into lab mode for the long haul of extracting the tiny, elusive shrimp from the sponges and processing them. Our five-member team is now a well-oiled machine, working in assembly-line mode, each with a specific responsibility. This includes identifying shrimp under the microscope, removing subsamples for DNA analyses of genetic relatedness and social structure, measuring and preserving samples of the sponges they came from and carefully documenting all collection data. Even with the efficient division of labor, we’re all seeing double with exhaustion by the time we batten down the lab windows and turn out the light around midnight. This is our routine, from 7:30 a.m. until near midnight for eight days, a point that frequently seems lost when I tell people I’m away for a research trip to the reefs of the Caribbean.

In the morning, I return to my station by the backreef for a few minutes of quiet at daybreak. Strong wind from the southeast, overcast skies and intermittent drizzle. But no lightning so far. We can work. Looking back through my records from more than a decade, I calculate that 75 percent of our shrimp collections in this area consisted of social species — three out of every four specimens we collected. Now there are none, save for a few small colonies of one partly social species. It’s extraordinary. The finding puts into perspective a parallel and also puzzling pattern that we observed in Jamaica. Sampling there in 2008, we found abundant large colonies of social shrimp, but earlier this year colonies were few and much smaller in size. On the Caribbean side of Panama, our colleagues noted a similar disappearance of one of the social species over a few short years.

Kenneth MacdonaldSynalpheus sanctithomae female
It now seems clear that a regional decline of social shrimp is under way. And it’s part of a larger pattern of change. Below the deceptively sunny surface of the tropical sea, the loss of social shrimp is only the latest signal of a global ocean ecosystem on the brink of profound change. I and my colleagues everywhere have watched with alarm the astonishingly rapid transformation of the world’s coral reefs, the crown jewels of the planet’s encompassing ocean, over little more than a single human generation. When I began graduate school in 1985, the transformation was only just dawning on us. Most of us got into this business because of what can only be called a love affair with the ocean and its life. But we have been drawn into the unwelcome role of witnessing and documenting the death spiral of reefs and struggling to find some hope for keeping them alive.

As Roger Bradbury wrote bluntly in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times a few days ago, that hope is proving to be a phantom. Coral reefs are dying at our own hands. The murder weapons — fossil fuel consumption and food production — are the basic engines of human economic growth. Relentless harvesting of grazing fishes releases algae and seaweeds that overgrow corals. Rising global temperatures, guaranteed for decades to come by the legacy of greenhouse gases we’ve already released, are already killing corals, which typically live near their upper thermal tolerances. The acidification of the ocean by the same greenhouse gas emissions is expected to dissolve the coral skeletons that create reefs in the first place. Once that complex structure erodes, we are left with flat rock pavements covered by scrubby algae, and biodiversity is accordingly reduced to a fraction of what a healthy reef supports.

S. ChakRacing home before the storm comes.
Why worry about saving reefs? We frequently hear that they protect coastlines, support tourism and fisheries in the developing world and influence the global carbon budget. These are all true enough and important. But we really care about reefs, we fear for them, because they are exquisitely beautiful and magical undersea gardens of Eden, full of almost unimaginable life-forms that wake something essential in us. They show us, more than perhaps any other ecosystem, what the primeval fire of life is capable of, what it has in fact done over incomprehensible time spans, which we are now undoing permanently. My fear is that a more of us are growing up estranged from the benefits of wild nature and, lacking personal experience of their value, will not even know what we are losing, much less work to preserve and nurture it.

The shrimp we study are admittedly only small players in the drama of the reef, but they are bellwethers of the fundamental changes under way all around us. Our hope is that the new research direction that circumstances have forced on us will help provide 
some answers to what is driving that change and where we’re headed.

Source: http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/in-caribbean-reefs-social-shrimp-disappear/

By Nathalia Holt | July 30, 2012

Learning the technical jargon is not for everyone. In fact, don't even worry about it right now. However, shooting marine life underwater is not as easy as shooting on land (technically in air), and even a simple point and shoot camera underwater requires a little extra thinking.
 
The first step to understanding any kind of photography is understanding your camera. If you are brand new to digital photography, take the time to read the camera’s manual. 
The FundamentalsNo matter what camera you have, from an entry-level digital "point & shoot" to the most expensive dSLR , there are ten golden rules of underwater photography that you must always remember. Many of these rules are related to composition in the underwater environment. Every photographer can benefit from proper composition, so it is also worthwhile to read the entire Composition Guide. 
  
1) Get Close, And Then Get Closer! 
The overarching mantra of underwater photography is to get close. Or, better phrased - "get as close as you think you need to get, and then get closer!"
 

Water absorbs light very quickly, and the most common complaint for new underwater photographers is the dull blueish-greyish hue of their images. Removing the amount of water between the camera and the subject will mean a clearer, sharper, and more colorful image. Additionally, in water, there are tiny floating particles that you might not notice until they show up in your images. We refer to these particles asbackscatter.  Minimizing the amount of water between your camera and your subject will also minimize the amount of backscatter in your images. 

  
2) Shoot Up. In underwater photography, images usually turn out better when shooting at a slight upward angle towards the subject. Shooting down on the subject is often easier, as the reef is usually below us while we dive, but images of the tops of fish and coral are not interesting. Shooting up creates a more appealing view of your subject, and can create much needed contrast between the foreground subject and the background of your images. By shooting up, you can often also include the open water in the image, which is a better background for an image than a cluttered area of the reef. 
  
3) Focus On The Eyes
Getting images in focus is, obviously, necessary for a successful image. Everything else can be perfect, but if the subject is out of focus, then, well, it’s really just an image of an ambiguous blurry thing.
 
In wildlife photography, one of the most important rules is keeping the eye of the subject sharp. Place the focus bracket (the little crosshair looking thing you see when looking at the LCD screen or the viewfinder) so it aligns with the subject's eye, depress your shutter button halfway to focus in on the eye and then when you have your photograph composed, push down completely on the shutter. Voila – you’re now in your focusing groove! 

Notice how much impactful the side of the image where the hawkfish is making eye contact is than the side where the eye is turned around and "missing" 

4) Keeping Yourself FocusedDiving with a camera and diving without a camera are two totally different activities. After diving with a camera, you may find that those dives where you just cruised along casually observing the scenery no longer seem quite as fun.  Carefully perusing the environment for the next photo opportunity is the name of the game now, and there’s no going back. 

Patience is paramount in underwater photography. Waiting for your subject to assume the perfect position or letting other divers go by so that they are not in the frame are things you will have to get used to. It’s not uncommon for advanced underwater photographers to spend multiple  dives on a single subject – even a common subject. The results can be worth it. 

Of course, the casual underwater photographer doesn't need to be obsessive, but a level of personal focus and attention to detail will take your photography a long way! 
  
5) Use a StrobeSince water absorbs light and sucks the color out of underwater images, use underwater strobes to restore color, create contrast and help retain image sharpness. This may be your single most important investment.  

Because of the way light penetrates water, many images look very blue without using strobes. Additionally, strobes freeze movement which helps avoid blurry images.
 
Using a strobe can make all the difference
 
6) Shoot, Review, Adjust, Rinse, RepeatSometimes we take for granted the shortened learning curve that digital photography has created by giving us immediate access to review our images. To an extent, the LCD screen on your camera may be its most important feature. Take advantage of this feature and take the time to review your images as you shoot to make sure your subject is well exposed, nicely composed and you are happy with outcome. Review every image if possible. Don't like exactly what you see? Adjust accordingly and shoot again (you'll learn how to adjust soon, we promise.) New photographers may find it hard to understand how anybody ever acheived good results with underwater photography prior to the advent of the LCD screen. In fact, capturing good underwater images on film was indeed much more difficult than it is today.   
  
7) Go ManualStarting off in auto mode is not a problem. But auto settings can only get you so far in underwater photography. To really control the exposure, color and sharpness of your images and to get creative you’ll need to embrace some degree of manual controls. Don’t worry, it’s not that scary! 
  
8) Maintain Your EquipmentWater and electronics don’t mix very well. It’s important to take your time when setting up your camera and housing. Make sure o-rings are clean and greased, but not over greased. One strand of hair or spec of dirt can be the difference between keeping the ocean out of your housing or flooding it. Assuming you are shooting in saltwater, rinse your camera gear off with fresh water after every dive. Never let salt water dry on your equipment. For more information on maintaining your underwater gear, read our guide to maintenance. 
 
9) Respect the EnvironmentRemember, we are priveledged guests in the underwater world. Respecting the environment and its inhabitants should be one of your top priorities. Before you start taking your camera underwater it is important to have excellent bouyancy skills, this will help protect both yourself and the environment around you. Keep all of your gear streamlined as to minimize the potential of a gauge or hose getting entangled or damaging the reef. Never harrass or touch marine life. You may not realize the damage inflicted from even minor touching. Be patient and let your images be the reward from your interactions. 
  
10) Have Fun!Don’t forget that underwater photography is supposed to be fun. Don’t get too caught up in the technical side. Start off with the basics, get a feel for it, and learn the technical side later. Go get wet and enjoy yourself! 
Source: http://www.divephotoguide.com/getting-started-with-underwater-photography/top-10-basic-principles-underwater-photography/

ScienceDaily (July 31, 2012) — 
Rapid rates of coral reef growth have been identified in sediment-laden marine environments, conditions previously believed to be detrimental to reef growth. A new study has established that Middle Reef -- part of Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef -- has grown more rapidly than many other reefs in areas with lower levels of sediment stress.
Led by the University of Exeter, the study by an international team of scientists is published August 1, 2012 in the journal Geology.

Middle Reef is located just 4 km off the mainland coast near Townsville, Australia, on the inner Great Barrier Reef shelf. Unlike the clear waters in which most reefs grow, Middle Reef grows in water that is persistently 'muddy'. The sediment comes from waves churning up the muddy sea floor and from seasonal river flood plumes. The Queensland coast has changed significantly since European settlement, with natural vegetation cleared for agricultural use increasing sediment runoff. High levels of sediment result in poor water quality, which is believed to have a detrimental effect on marine biodiversity.

The research team collected cores through the structure of Middle Reef to analyze how it had grown. They used radiocarbon dating to map out the precise growth rate of the reef. Results show that the reef started to grow only about 700 years ago but that it has subsequently grown rapidly towards sea level at rates averaging nearly 1 cm per year. These rates are significantly higher than those measured on most clear water reefs on the Great Barrier Reef and elsewhere. Most intriguingly, the periods of most rapid growth -- averaging 1.3 cm a year -- occurred when the accumulation rates of land-derived sediment within the reef structure were also at their peak. They discovered that, while the reef faced high sediment levels after the European settlers arrived in the 1800s, these same conditions were also part of the long-term environmental regime under which the reef grew.

Although there is evidence that other reefs have suffered degradation from high levels of sediment, these findings suggest that in some cases reefs can adapt to these conditions and thrive. For Middle Reef, rapid rates of vertical reef growth have, paradoxically, probably been aided by the high sedimentation rates. The team believe this is because the accumulating sediment rapidly covers the coral skeletons after their death, preventing their destruction by fish, urchins and other biological eroders, thus promoting coral framework preservation and rapid reef growth.

Professor Chris Perry of Geography at the University of Exeter said: "Our research challenges the long-held assumption that high sedimentation rates are necessarily bad news in terms of coral reef growth. It is exciting to discover that Middle Reef has in fact thrived in these unpromising conditions. It is, however, important to remain cautious when considering what this means for other reefs. Middle Reef includes corals adapted to deal with high sedimentation and low light conditions. Other reefs where corals and various other reef organisms are less well adapted may not do so well if sediment inputs increased.

"Our research calls for a rethink on some of the classic models of reef growth. At a time when these delicate and unique ecosystems are under threat from climate change and ocean acidification, a view endorsed in a recent consensus statement from many of the World's coral reef scientists, it is more important than ever that we understand how, when and where reefs can grow and thrive."

This study was conducted by a team from the University of Exeter (UK), James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland (Australia), and the NERC Radiocarbon Laboratory, Scotland (UK). It was funded by the Leverhulme Trust and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

Reef facts

• A coral reef is made up of thin layers of calcium carbonate (limestone) secreted over thousands of years by billions of tiny soft bodied animals called coral polyps.
• Coral reefs are the world's most diverse marine ecosystems and are home to twenty-five percent of known marine species, including 4,000 species of fish, 700 species of coral and thousands of other plants and animals.
• Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.
• The largest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef, which stretches along the northeast coast of Australia, from the northern tip of Queensland, to just north of Bundaberg. At 2,300km long, it is the largest natural feature on Earth.
• Coral reefs occupy less than one quarter of one percent of Earth's marine environment, yet they are home to more than a quarter of all known fish species.
• As well as supporting huge tourist industries, coral reefs protect shorelines from erosion and storm damage.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120731201251.htm#.UBp5U5sIpAs.facebook

martes, 31 de julio de 2012 
Sara M. Justicia Doll / sjusticia@primerahora.com

Como si fuera poco con los problemas que han traído al país las especies invasoras como la rana arbórea cubana, la gallina de palo o el pez león, a la lista de especies exóticas que amenazan a nuestra flora y fauna se ha sumado un enorme camarón

El crustáceo de agua salada, el más grande disponible comercialmente, se conoce como camarón tigre (Penaeus monodon).

El atractivo camarón fue visto por el veterano pescador Ramón “Kiko” Acosta un domingo del mes de mayo cuando recogió el chinchorro en la playa del sector La Boquilla, en Mayagüez.

Según Jannette Ramos García, la coordinadora de la revista de pesca Fuete y Verguilla, una publicación del programa Sea Grant UPR, Kilo recogía su chinchorro cuando sintió un ruido extraño, distinto al que producen los peces.

“Kiko se detuvo a mirar qué producía el sonido. Su sorpresa fue tan grande como lo que veía dentro del chinchorro, donde se encontraba un enorme camarón solitario. La apariencia de éste era totalmente diferente a los que él conocía y, de inmediato, lo sacó. El camarón medía cerca de un pie de largo y su cuerpo oscuro estaba surcado de forma transversal con unas líneas amarillas”, documentó Ramos García.

Kiko congeló el animal y lo llevó a Sea Grant para que lo ayudaran a identificarlo.

En efecto, luego de varias consultas, confirmaron que se trataba del camarón tigre que, al igual que el pez león, natural del Pacífico, ha llegado a invadir las aguas caribeñas.

Según explicó el biólogo marino Jorge Casillas Maldonado, quien trabaja para Sea Grant UPR, el camarón tigre es oriundo de áreas de mangle en el Indo-Pacífico tropical.

¿Pero, cómo llegó a Puerto Rico?La carne del camarón tigre es comercializada mundialmente y es de alta calidad, por eso en Centroamérica y Asia existen múltiples instalaciones de acuacultura donde se crían en cantidades comerciales.

El asunto con estas instalaciones es que quedan muy cerca de los Océanos y posiblemente ha habido escapes, y así estos camarones han llegado a invadir las costas del Golfo de México, el este de Estados Unidos y ahora Puerto Rico, según demuestra el mapa del Servicio federal Geológico (USGS).

“Esto representa un problema bastante grande porque, al ser un camarón enorme, se va a comer otros más pequeños. También es un camarón con unos hábitos alimenticios voraces, así que va a acabar con lo que comen los camarones más pequeños que él, desplazando esas poblaciones. Además, el camarón tigre transporta 16 enfermedades que pueden perjudicar a los camarones locales y cangrejos que no cuentan con defensas para protegerse”, agregó el biólogo Casillas.

Pero éste no ha sido el único avistamiento en el Atlántico. En 1988 se capturaron alrededor de 300 ejemplares en las costas de Carolina del Sur, donde se cree que hubo un escape masivo de una empresa de acuacultura.

También se han reportado capturas en Carolina del Norte, Luisiana, Florida, Georgia y Texas, entre los años 2008 y 2011.

Otro elemento que convierte al camarón tigre en una verdadera amenaza es su ritmo de reproducción. Las hembras pueden soltar entre 500,000 y 750,000 huevos.

¿Qué debe hacer si lo encuentra?El experto informó que estos animales no son venenosos como el pez león, así que los pescadores y ciudadanos pueden ingerirlos. No obstante, al ser una especie invasora, el científico exhorta a que se reporten los avistamientos al USGS o a Sea Grant UPR al 787-832-8045.


Recurso: http://www.primerahora.com/¡nosinvadeuncamaron!-otras-noticias-nota-678064.html#.UBe27xJiPx0.facebook

http://www.agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/nc/detalle/article/camaron-tigre-invade-con-sus-virus-al-caribe-colombiano/

Otros:  http://www.seagrantpr.org/catalog/files/fuete/vol6num2.pdf

Por Marga Parés y Keila López /puertoricohoy@elnuevodia.com
Utuado- Aunque las autoridades locales minimizaron ayer el impacto de un derrame de combustible en el lago Dos Bocas en este municipio, la movilización de expertos y agencias ambientales locales y federales demuestra lo contrario.

El jueves en la mañana, visitantes detectaron una mancha negra flotando sobre el lago, que capta las aguas que eventualmente llegan a una planta hidroeléctrica de la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica (AEE) y al Superacueducto, la planta de agua más grande de la Isla.

Hasta allí llegó personal de la región 2 de la Agencia federal de Protección Ambiental (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés), entidad que el sábado se hizo cargo de la limpieza del derrame.

“No diría que es algo mínimo por la hidroeléctrica y porque hay gente que toma agua (potable) del Superacueducto”, dijo Dilshad Perera, coordinador de la EPA que viajó desde Nueva Jersey.

Perera informó que el escape provino de una embarcación privada de unos 60 pies de largo que está hundida a unos 20 pies de profundidad desde hace casi 30 años. Aunque ayer los buzos aún no habían terminado su evaluación, el experto manifestó que se cree que la nave tenía dos tanques con diesel, con capacidad para 250 galones entre los dos. Debido al deterioro de la embarcación y la sedimentación adherida a ella, no se había identificado el nombre del barco.

Perera explicó que la EPA se está rigiendo por el Plan de Contingencia Nacional que se activa en casos como este. Los fondos para financiar los trabajos de limpieza provienen del Oil Pollution Act, indicó Perera.

El científico ambiental Neftalí García explicó que el diesel es menos denso que el agua, por lo que el combustible flotará hacia la superficie del embalse. Esta propiedad facilitará el proceso de limpieza ya que podrá ser sacado con material absorbente.

“Si la toma de agua de la planta de filtración (de la AAA) está a varias decenas de pies de profundidad, lo que podría esperarse es que la cantidad de diesel que pase sea bien reducida”, indicó García. El experto destacó que el principal daño del derrame se verá en los organismos que viven en el lago y las plantas a su alrededor, no tanto en el agua potable.

“Hubiera sido peor si el derrame hubiera ocurrido en el río, aguas abajo de la represa. Sería mucho más peligroso para la fuente de agua cruda y el tratamiento del agua potable pues sería más difícil recoger el combustible y eso es agua en movimiento, lo que facilita que se disuelva en el agua. Si hubiese sido en el río sería un riesgo mayor para el agua que lleva a la AAA”, explicó García.

Fue el jueves a las 10:15 a.m., cuando Lorna Rivera, del restaurante El Otoao, detectó el fuerte olor mientras esperaba en el muelle junto a un grupo de turistas para tomar la embarcación que los llevaría al negocio.

“Pensé que era gasolina y cuando se lo notifiqué al 'ranger' subimos a la oficina a ver desde arriba y notamos la mancha... Era una placa bastante grande. Llegaba hasta la orilla”, dijo Rivera.

Empleados de la Agencia Estatal para el Manejo de Emergencias y Administración de Desastres (AEMEAD) fueron alertados y varias agencias fueron activadas, comenzando con la AEE, quien tiene la titularidad de estas aguas por manejar allí una planta hidroeléctrica, además de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA) ya que Dos Bocas es un importante abasto del cual se nutre el Superacueducto.

Varios residentes y comerciantes del área, que prefirieron no identificarse, informaron que la fuente del derrame es una de dos embarcaciones hundidas en el área. Estas, dijeron, eran lanchas utilizadas hace décadas en Cataño y luego fueron llevadas hasta Utuado, pero no sirvieron para navegar por el lago Dos Bocas debido a su diseño y tamaño. Alegadamente las embarcaciones fueron vendidas a un ponceño que las dejó allí abandonadas durante las últimas tres décadas.

Menos de un mes de trabajo

En lo que se limpia el cuerpo de agua, tanto la AEE como la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA) están tomando medidas para asegurar que el combustible no llegue a sus plantas. La AAA aseguró que está haciendo monitoreos de agua dos veces al día y hasta el momento no han detectado la presencia de contaminantes cerca de la planta de tratamiento.

“Nuestra prioridad es que no llegue al Superacueducto”, dijo Carlos González, de la AAA, quien recalcó que esa planta genera unos 100 millones de galones de agua diarios para abastecer pueblos de la zona norte y el área metropolitana.

“No es un derrame de gran magnitud, pero se formó una barrera protectora con material absorbente”, dijo Rafael Román, coordinador de Servicio de Respuestas a Emergencias de la AEE, quien comentó que los trabajos se concentran, principalmente, en identificar el escape del contaminante y sellar los tanques, no así en sacar el barco del lugar.

Por su parte, el ambientalista y representante del interés público en la junta de gobierno de la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica (AEE), Juan Rosario, expresó su preocupación con la presencia de embarcaciones en el fondo de un cuerpo de agua.

“Yo me imagino que la AEE tendrá algún plan de manejo de las cuencas de los cuerpos de agua, pero hay que ver si se está poniendo en práctica, cuánto dinero se le asigna para mantenimiento y cuáles son los problemas que tiene cada uno”, expresó Rosario.

Según Perera, se estima que los trabajos de limpieza no tomarán más de un mes. Por el momento, ayer causó un tapón de visitantes ávidos de llegar hasta los restaurantes al otro lado del lago.

“Llevamos más de una hora esperando, pero parece que aquí en Puerto Rico siempre hay problemas con los botes, como el otro día en Culebra, que tuvimos que esperar cuatro horas para coger la lancha”, dijo Eileen Soto, de Miami, Florida.

Recurso: http://www.elnuevodia.com/extranoderrameenellagodosbocas-1311248.html#.UBaCv8vz-rk.twitter

GRAND CAYMAN, Cayman Islands -- In mid-July, personnel from the Guy Harvey Research Institute once again collaborated with the Cayman Islands Department of Environment to conduct the annual census of the stingray population in Grand Cayman. This year we were joined by three researchers from the Georgia Aquarium, who were on hand to assist with analyzing the overall health of the stingrays.

The situation at the Sandbar in North Sound is unique, with a large number of wild rays that are not fenced or contained but inhabit the shallow clear water with accessibility every day of the year. The socio-economic value of the rays to the Cayman economy is enormous. On average, each animal can generate up to $500,000 in revenue per year, or $10,000,000 over the course of a 20-year life span!


From a historical perspective, it is worth setting out the track record of research work conducted on the population of stingrays in Grand Cayman. Research was started by the GHRI in 2002 when all the stingrays that frequent the two main sites were caught by hand and tagged with a PIT (passive integrated transponder) at the base of their tail. During the initial count, 164 rays were tagged, weighed and measured at the Sandbar over two years. Since then, tag retention has remained near 100%, so many animals tagged ten years ago still have their PIT today. This has been a very simple and valuable tool to track the life history and growth rates of these animals.

For the period 2002 – 2003, one hundred rays were sampled each month over a three-day period at the Sandbar. The same situation was experienced in a subsequent census conducted by the GHRI in 2005 and 2008. As expected, over time there was recruitment of new (untagged) rays to the Sandbar and loss of individuals due to migration, natural mortality and possibly some predation. The sex ratio of 90% females to 10% males has remained fairly constant over this time.

From 2010 tour operators and casual observations indicated a sudden decline in the number of rays at the Sandbar. In response to the reports, the GHRI conducted a census in January 2012 and sampled only 61 rays in the standard three day research period at the Sandbar, which represents a significant (38%) decrease in number of rays compared to the last census in 2008. Now that we had some hard facts to support the eyewitness accounts, the next logical step was to find out what was causing the decline in population.

The numbers of rays have been constant since research was started in 2002 with recruitment and mortality being well balanced. GHRI personnel ruled out predation by sharks in the January census due to lack of evidence of shark bites (near misses) and the corresponding demise of sharks in the last ten years. However, fishing mortality (intentionally or by accident) is a consideration. I say this because here is no national protection for stingrays - outside of the Wildlife Interactive Zones (WIZ) this species has no protection and can be removed and consumed by residents.

Another possibility for us to consider is the overall health of the rays, which is why GHRI enlisted the support of the Georgia Aquarium veterinary staff for this year's census. The addition of the GA vets also allowed the research work to become much more technical. Dr. Tonya Clauss (Director Animal Health, Georgia Aquarium), Dr. Lisa Hoopes (Nutritionist, Georgia Aquarium) and Nicole Boucha (Senior Veterinary Technician, Georgia Aquarium) arrived in Grand Cayman loaded with equipment to take blood and store these precious samples in liquid nitrogen until analysis could be achieved back in Georgia.

Over three days the team sampled 57 rays (only 5 males) at the Sandbar (down from 61 in January) with assistance from DoE staff and several volunteers. The team also spent a day at the original Stingray City and sampled 11 rays (2 males) and caught 3 rays (1 male) at Rum Point, bringing the total to 71 rays sampled. The low number of males in this year's sample is definitely cause for concern.

Each ray was caught by hand and transferred to the pool in the workboat where they were measured and tagged, and then blood was taken from the underside of the base of the tail. Some of this blood was immediately centrifuged to make counts of white blood cells. The rest was frozen in liquid nitrogen for shipment back to the lab in the Georgia Aquarium.

From the blood samples the vets will be able to determine if the (monotonous) diet of squid fed to the rays by the majority of tour operators is affecting the animal's health. The processing of samples and data will take several weeks. At the end of this process we will have more knowledge about these valuable creatures and how better to manage their supplementary diet and well being.

Overall, a long-term plan of monitoring the numbers of rays and their health is required. Everyone in the Cayman Islands benefits from the presence of this unique marine interactive site. Every advertising campaign or tourism related article featuring the Cayman Islands has these iconic animals up front and prominently displayed. It is time the government of the Cayman Islands returned the favor by supporting ongoing research of the stingrays' population status and well being by releasing funds in the Environmental Protection Fund collected for this purpose.

Source: http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=70132459610

Frances Tirado / ftirado@primerahora.comAlfredo Montañez, hijo menor del salsero Andy Montañez, no se siente atraído por la música como su famoso padre, sin embargo, reconoce que ha heredado de él su amor por Puerto Rico, el cual manifiesta a través de su compromiso con el ambiente marino.

“Tengo de él ese amor por Puerto Rico y por hacer un cambio. Uno va creciendo y aprendiendo cosas. Quiero hacer algo por Puerto Rico y en eso papi siempre ha estado ahí, que es lo que veo, el apoyo que papi le da a los puertorriqueños y el amor que le da a Puerto Rico”, dice el joven de 21 años, quien es gemelo con Andrea.

Hace un año, Alfredo Montañez, preside el Capítulo Estudiantil Sociedad Ambiente Marino (Cesam) en la Universidad de Puerto Rico (UPR), Recinto de Río Piedras. Desde esta entidad exhorta a los puertorriqueños a que amen las playas y las mantengan limpias, en especial los días festivos porque amanecen cubiertas de basura tanto en el agua como en la arena y la vida marina se pone en riesgo.

Su compromiso es tanto que, junto con un grupo de unos 45 voluntarios, realizó el pasado miércoles la actividad Festival de la Colilla para hacer un recogido de basura en la playa de Ocean Park en Condado.

“Este ecosistema costero se ve afectado diariamente por las colillas de cigarrillo y la contaminación lumínica. El objetivo es conocer y disminuir nuestros impactos negativos hacia éste y mejorar el lugar de anidamiento y eclosión de las tortugas marinas, como el tinglar”, dice el también entrenador personal y estudiante de biología en la UPR.

Agrega que su hermana Andrea, quien también estudia biología en la UPR, no fue hasta que regresó de Cuba de un internado en biología que comprendió su pasión por el mundo marino.

“Ella me dijo: ‘Alfredo, ahora entiendo tu viaje con el medio ambiente’. Sé que si la pompeo a ella, sé que voy a pompear a otros universitarios que están perdidos”, reitera al tiempo que indica que “esto de la biología marina es importante en Puerto Rico”.

Para Alfredo Montañez, es lamentable que en la UPR de Río Piedras no haya un curso ni bachillerato de biología marina, aunque el Colegio Universitario de Humaco lo ofrece. Por eso recalca que existe la organziación sin fines de lucro C.E.S.A.M, porque orienta a las personas y ofrece clases de la vida marina.

“A mí me gusta todo esto y no he cogido nada de biología marina, lo que he aprendido ha sido por la experiencia y conociendo gente, porque me gusta. En Puerto Rico no se le está dando la importancia a la biología marina en una isla rodeada de agua”, precisa.

QUIERE LLEVAR A ANDY A BUCEAR

Alfredo Montañez, quien preferió enfocarse más en el tema de su pasión por la vida marina que en su talentoso padre, revela que no ha llevado a bucear al sonero, pero que eso está en sus planes.

Su deseo es reunir a su familia y llevarla a explorar el mundo marino a través de una snokeada para que aprenda y vea con sus propios ojos un arrecife de coral y los peces.

En cuanto a su padre quien, pese a haber celebrado con un concierto sus 50 años de carrera, se sigue recuperando de su pie derecho tras un accidente de auto en Colombia que por poco le cuesta la vida hace dos meses y medio, dice que: “Él me necesita más que nada. Cuando papi se recupere lo voy a llevar al mar porque también le quiero dar sus terapias en la playa, como entrenador personal que soy”.