Conservation & Environment

April 1, 2014 — To anyone on land, climate change can seem subtle. The sea, however, is changing alarmingly. The latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the second of three reports on the impacts of global warming—offers the scary forecast that the hotter the planet, the higher the risk of  ”abrupt and irreversible changes” (pdf, p.13) to ecosystems.

We’ve already tipped past some of those ”tipping points” in the oceans, though. By the middle of the century, global warming will have thoroughly reshuffled marine ecosystems (pdf, p.16). That will leave some areas with more sea life to catch, but will thin out the marine populations in more temperate climes. The complex interplay of these and other factors will invite the invasion of a few marine species, driving others to new, less hospitable habitats—and even extinction.

Fish don’t like it hot

Since fish are lousy at adapting to hotter water, they simply move to where it’s cooler. This, says the IPCC report, will hurt commercial fishing in a big way. As fishing populations in the equatorial areas disappear, more fish and marine invertebrates will be pushed toward the poles. That means fishing fleets will have to travel farther, driving up costs. And some species won’t survive these strange new habitats.

The red and yellow areas in the map below show where fish catches will decrease the most. Many of these are close to shore, where commercially valuable species tend to congregate because food is more plentiful. There are lots of blue areas where fish populations are predicted to increase, but they’re smaller to begin with. The IPCC is vague on whether this will reduce the total global fish supply, but catching those fish will certainly be harder.

Read the full story at Quartz

March 31, 2014 — The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill struck at the very heart of fish, a new study says. Exposed to millions of gallons of crude, young tuna and amberjack, some of the speediest predators in the ocean, developed heart defects that are likely to limit their ability to catch food.

The findings of the study, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have grim implications for the future of yellowfin and bluefin tuna, as well as amberjack, that were embryos, larvae or juveniles when the spill occurred during tuna-spawning season in the northern Gulf of Mexico in April 2010.

Embryos are highly sensitive, so fragile that it is possible to see through them. When scientists re-created the conditions of the spill in a lab, exposing tuna and amberjack in the developmental stage to an oil slick, they observed “a slowing of their heartbeats,” said Barbara Block, a biology professor at Stanford University who co-authored the study.

“They’re not going to be able to survive” as they develop into adult fish, said Nat Scholz, leader of the ecotoxicology program at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. “You’re going to be losing those fish from the adult spawning population.”

The study — “Deepwater Horizon crude oil impacts the developing hearts of large predatory pelagic fish” — was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

Research conducted on fish after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill had similar findings, but the exposed population then was smaller because the 11-million-gallon spill collected closer to the shore, killing an estimated 250,000 birds.

Read the full story from The Washington Post

March 25, 2014 — Crude oil from BP Plc (BP/)’s 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill may have led to heart defects and premature death for tuna, researchers backed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report.

Exposure to the oil may slow or cause an uncoordinated rhythm in the heartbeat of developing Atlantic bluefin and yellowfin tuna and an amberjack species, according to a study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Damaged hearts may reduce swimming performance, jeopardizing a fish’s survival.

“The timing and location of the spill raised immediate concerns for bluefin tuna,” Barbara Block, a professor of biology at Stanford University who helped write the study, said in a statement. “This spill occurred in prime bluefin spawning habitats, and the new evidence indicates a compromising effect of oil on the physiology and morphology of bluefin embryos and larvae.”

The April blowout of BP’s Macondo well gushed oil for 87 days, fouling beaches from Florida to Louisiana and forcing the U.S. to shut about 37 percent of the Gulf to fishing. Most areas reopened in late 2010. It was the worst U.S. offshore spill and spewed about 4.9 million barrels of oil and forced London-based BP to sell about $38 billion in assets to pay for clean up and compensating victims.

The defect cited in the study may doom affected tuna later in life, Jacqueline Savitz, vice president for U.S. Oceans for the environment group Oceana, said in response to the report.

Read the full story from Bloomberg

March 24, 2014 — Below is a release from Doug Rader, Ph.D., Chief Ocean Scientist for Environmental Defense Fund on the oil spill that took place in Galveston Bay, Texas on March 22, 2014:

“Galveston Bay is one of America’s greatest estuaries and an important home to Texas seafood providers and recreational fishermen as well as the entry point to the Port of Houston. While the area has long dealt with many pollution concerns, this spill is significant. Since the first report of the spill on March 22, 2014, there have already been reports of fuel oil traveling more broadly into the rest of Galveston Bay.

“The spill not only threatens the birds and other large animals residing in the bay, but also important seafood species like shrimp, blue crab, menhaden and oysters. It could also impact populations of popular recreational fish like red drum and speckled sea trout. 

“In the early stages of this spill much remains unknown, but for shrimp, blue crab, menhaden and other marine life, which rely on the bay as an essential nursery, further investigation and long-term monitoring within the footprint of this spill is necessary.

Read the full release from Environmental Defense Fund

March 25, 2014 — Conservation and food-safety groups filed a formal notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today for failing to protect hundreds of endangered fish, butterflies and other species from a new, toxic pesticide called cyantraniliprole.

The EPA violated the Endangered Species Act by approving the widespread agricultural and residential use of the new pesticide in January without input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, the two federal agencies in charge of protecting endangered species.

“Once again the EPA has approved a harmful pesticide without adequate conservation measures to protect endangered species,” said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This reckless approval of cyantraniliprole really undermines recent efforts to reform the EPA’s dangerous policy of ignoring the disastrous effects pesticides are having on wildlife across the country.”

The EPA failed to consider or mitigate impacts to endangered species despite concluding in its assessment that cyantraniliprole is “very highly toxic” to hundreds of endangered aquatic species such as freshwater fish, mussels and clams, as well as endangered terrestrial invertebrate species, including 20 endangered butterflies.

Read the full story from EcoWatch

February 21, 2014 — International advocacy group Oceana says it has received a $3 million grant from the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation for its work to protect threatened ocean habitat and keystone marine species such as sharks.

Oceana said Thursday the grant, which will be spread over three years, will also support its work to advocate for responsible fishing measures, including a ban on California drift gillnets.

Read the full story at The Hamilton Spectator

 

 

March 14, 2014 — Alaska's Bristol Bay region, adjacent to the Bering Sea in the state's southwest corner, is rich with large and productive reserves of natural resources. One of those resources, the world's largest sockeye-salmon fishery, generates an estimated $1.5 billion annually. The thousands of pristine acres of surrounding wetlands, ponds, and lakes are treasured because there isn't much untouched land left in America. Bristol Bay is also home to a large population of Alaska Natives, whose cultures and lifestyles revolve around the region's "wildness" and especially its salmon. Those are the living, breathing resources of Bristol Bay. And then there are the inorganic resources—oil and gas and mineral deposits, not yet fully explored or exploited but representing a whole lot more wealth than Alaska's accessing now.

A particularly significant deposit of gold, molybdenum, and copper—the largest known untapped copper deposit in the world, in fact—has been identified in Bristol Bay. It's known as the Pebble prospect. A Canadian company called Northern Dynasty Minerals started exploring the area in 2000. In 2007, Northern Dynasty partnered with U.K.-based Anglo American to form the Pebble Partnership and buy the rights to all the minerals in the deposit. The corporation's plans to build the "Pebble Mine" have yet to progress much beyond the idea stage, as the Pebble Partnership website says itself:

What is the Pebble Mine?

Right now, it’s an idea. An idea that could help power our nation’s green energy initiatives. An idea that could bring jobs and infrastructure to Southwest Alaska, helping families remain in their villages and thrive. An idea that all of this is possible in harmony with the environment.
The Pebble Mine has yet to be built because the process of getting state and federal permits for a project of this size is long, but also because it's highly controversial. The mine pits two of Alaska's biggest industries—fishing and mining, both of which are extractive, but only one of which is "sustainable"—against each other in a classic resource war: Weighing gold against salmon is weighing money against nature.

According to one school of thought, it’s a calculation that ought to be left to Alaskans. The Pebble Partnership promises to create jobs and bring in revenue, and the state residents—who will feel the effects either way—should know best whether this would do more long-term good than the protection of salmon stocks and preservation of pristine land. And polls have shown that the majority of Alaskans oppose the mine. An estimated 2.5 billion or more tons of toxic mineral waste would be dredged up at the site; even a tiny proportion of this waste, if leaked into surrounding waters, would chemically alter salmon habitat and threaten the health of the fishery.*

The oft-cited statistic is that “80 percent of Bristol Bay residents” are against it—a number based on data collected between 2007 and 2009, when the Pebble Mine controversy was most fevered. Two independent filmmakers brought attention to the issue with their documentary Red Gold in 2007. The state's most famous politician played both sides of the issue. While campaigning for governor in 2006, Sarah Palin said, “I am a commercial fisherman; my daughter’s name is Bristol,” and “I could not support a project that risks one resource that we know is a given, and that is the world’s richest spawning grounds, over another resource.” But two years later, she said she opposed a state ballot measure to restrict the discharge of toxic waste from new mining operations, which might have stopped the Pebble project from developing further. Some Alaskans took this as a betrayal of her promise to protect Alaska’s fisheries. The measure was defeated.

Read the full story at The Atlantic

WASHINGTON — March 14, 2014 — The following was released by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound:

In a landmark win for the environment, the U.S. District Court D.C. ruled today that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service need to revisit Cape Wind's impacts on migrating birds and endangered right whales in Nantucket Sound due to violations of environmental protection law.

"This is good news for environmentalists and for all of us who want to see the fragile and unique environment of Cape Cod protected," said Audra Parker, President and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. "The court has validated that federal agencies have taken unacceptable shortcuts in their review of Cape Wind."

The court ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated the Endangered Species Act in their reviews of the massive industrial project that has struggled to get off the ground for the last 13 years. The court remanded the case to FWS to independently evaluate a shutdown of turbines during migratory bird season.  FWS has acknowledged this as the most effective measure to reduce bird mortality; however, Cape Wind has resisted the measure as one that would destroy the economic feasibility of its proposed project.

The court also ruled that NMFS can no longer avoid fully evaluating impacts to right whales and must formulate and issue an incidental take statement because of the documented presence of this highly endangered species in the area and the potential for Cape Wind to cause harm.  In recent years, rare right whales have repeatedly been seen in the area.

"Given the presence of right whales in Nantucket Sound, NMFS can no longer ignore the need to protect this endangered species from potential harm from this industrial project," said Parker.

Read the full press release at PR Newswire

 

 

March 13, 2014 — Delivering help for the Everglades and relief for polluted coastal waterways requires squeezing $100 million a year of public money out of the Florida Legislature, South Florida officials said Thursday.

Cost concerns remain a huge hurdle for the Central Everglades plan — which could get more Lake Okeechobee water flowing south to the Everglades instead of draining it out to sea and hurting coastal fishing grounds.

Florida officials are trying to persuade Congress to split the nearly $2 billion total cost of the new Everglades project, but must first show how the state would pay for its share.

On Thursday, the South Florida Water Management District — which leads Everglades restoration — disclosed that it anticipates needing $100 million a year for about 20 years from the state's Save Our Everglades Trust Fund to pay for the Central Everglades plan and other ongoing restoration efforts.

But the Everglades Trust Fund isn't as trustworthy a funding source as it sounds, with state lawmakers ultimately deciding how much of that money flows to Florida's famed River of Grass.

The Everglades trust fund money directed to the water management district has been cut back during lean budget years, yo-yoing from $176 million in 2008 to $27 million in 2013. This year it was about $67 million. That raises questions about whether the money for the Central Everglades project will be there when needed.

Next month, the water management district's nine-member board will be asked to support moving the project forward, despite the cost concerns.

Read the full story at the South Florida Sun Sentinel