A truly gorgeous summer day sailing around Block Island at hull speed is one of my fondest ocean memories. So is battling with a monster striper around midnight on the rocks of Cuttyhunk Island. (Landed and released.) I’ve also been lucky to enjoy any number of days on Buzzard’s Bay either cranking off the miles in a kayak, watching my small daughter catch her first porgie or diving off the fish dock deep into the cool, clean, green water.

I can’t think for a minute what deep shock and dread I’d feel if we had a truly disastrous oil spill such as happened with BP’s Deepwater Horizon. The 2003 spill from a barge collision in Buzzard’s Bay released at least 98,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil and those impacts were astonishing. Imagine the damage from a months long oil geyser such as happened with the Montara blowout that started on August 21 2009 and flowed for 72 days. Or, maybe you haven’t heard about the spill off the coast of Nigeria this week that is likely to extend over 900 square kilometers? Imagine that one hovering along Cape Cod National Seashore and washing up week after week. This spill was caused when oil was simply being pumped from the supposedly safer platform of a large storage tanker to a transfer vessel.

As happened with BP’s disaster, oil field catastrophes often cost human lives. You may not have been able to pick up one of the scarce stories in the US media about the sinking of a drilling rig off of Russia’s Sakahlin Island barely a week ago that has killed at least 50 workers. The rough waves, strong winds and icy waters are similar to the challenges of oil drilling in America’s Arctic sea — and should raise the same concerns. (How many workers are we going to be putting immediately at risk in the Arctic with a potential oil spill when the closest US Coast Guard station is 1000 miles away?) Even the source of last month’s oil spill hundreds of miles off of the coast of Brazil took eight days to locate and they don’t have to deal with icebergs. The list of oil spill disasters is growing so quickly that disasters are now seemingly routine. Yet, the ability to “clean up” hasn’t generally improved since the 1960s. The only real way to prevent a spill is to not drill in the first place.

So, I am giving thanks this weekend for a healthy, oil-free ocean and for my CLF colleagues and our allies who work hard to keep it that way. Like winter itself, the political storms will come and go and it is heartening to know there are dedicated, smart people willing to take on the challenge. The best way to keep our beaches and waters healthy, vibrant and clean is to keep supporting the people and organizations who work for a better future. Thank you all and Happy Holidays.

• December 9: “Chefs Collaborative: Why accurate fish stock assessments matter” – Guest blog from Chefs Collaborative executive director about why accurately assessing the size of fish populations is important for fishermen, coastal communities, the government and even chefs and consumers!
• December 12: “Fish Talk in the News – Monday, December 12″ – This week in the news: disagreement over the decision to appeal the judge’s ruling in the Amendment 16 case, the Nature Conservancy buys a groundfish permit in Maine, support for catch shares in the Gulf of Mexico, locally sourced meats and seafood will be big in 2012, and the need to keep the Magnuson-Stevens Act strong.
• December 14: “Video: Watch my Testimony on Rebuilding a Vibrant New England Fishery” – A video of CLF’s Peter Shelley testifying before the House Committee on Natural Resources in early December.
• December 15: “Overfishing 101: Dissecting Sectors” – Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group writes about the New England groundfish fishery’s first year and counting under the new sector management system.
• December 16: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, December 16″ – Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment, fish may be more susceptible to ocean acidification than previously thought, the Coast Guard and fishermen work together to find mutually agreeable solutions, and a new app to track the mercury in your sushi.

As I wrote in a recent post here on CLF Scoop, I testified before the House Committee on Natural Resources on a topic that I have worked on for years: restoring New England’s fisheries and commercial fish populations. We recently posted that clip to YouTube. You can watch it by clicking on the image below.

You can also download a transcript of my testimony here, or read it here.

Thanks for supporting CLF’s work to rebuild a vibrant New England fishery.

Image courtesy of Arctic Exploration 2002, Russ Hopcroft, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, NOAA/OER

Sharks need pteropods, and so do you! At the risk of looking at the world through shark-shaped glasses, let me explain.

Pteropods are little mollusks (related to snails, slugs and squid) that drift around in ocean currents, feeding on nutrient-rich plankton. Their rich diet makes them delicious to many fish. Seals eat many fish, and sharks eat seals and fish, so there it is: not even 6 degrees of shark separation. Sharks need pteropods, and so do you.

Pteropods are gorgeous. People get poetic when they talk about them. Pteropods with shells are sometimes called “sea butterflies” and the shell-less ones are deemed “sea angels.” But good luck seeing them. The ones around here are tiny. According to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) pteropod researcher Amy Maas, the biggest they get is about 1/10 of an inch. Visible to the naked eye, but you probably couldn’t see their little faces. Small though they may be, unimportant they are not. Just ask the sharks.

As tiny sea creatures borne by currents, pteropods are individually delicate. Unfortunately, those with shells are under threat from ocean acidification (OA). I’ll be writing more about OA in the coming months, but here are the basics.

The carbon dioxide we are cranking into the atmosphere in unprecedented quantities does not just hang around heating up the planet, it also changes the chemistry of the oceans. The gases in the ocean must be at equilibrium with the gases in the air, so when CO2 concentrations increase in  the air, some of it dissolves into the ocean to achieve that balance. This forms carbonic acid, which decreases the pH of the water, making it more acidic. Ocean Acidification.

This is not good news for these little mollusks, since the minerals they need to grow shells are less available in the acidic water. WHOI scientist Gareth Lawson and other ocean researchers are trying to figure out exactly what will happen to our “charismatic microfauna” as the ocean pH drops. I’ll keep you posted. For now, check out this site about pteropods and OA (don’t miss the song at the bottom, it’s super catchy)

Carbon pollution and ocean acidification are not just New England issues. Yet, while OA is a global problem, there are things we can do right here, right now, to help.

CLF is working hard to prevent further harm and to give our abundant ocean life a chance to thrive. We are promoting clean energy and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to help stop OA and other negative effects of climate change. We are supporting a climate friendly modernized public transportation network. And we support our National Ocean Policy which calls for immediate steps to protect critical marine habitats, ensure a sustainable future for our fishing industry and coastal communities, reduce coastal pollution and promote the responsible development of offshore renewable energy.

By the way, according to the Shark Week Countdown Clock, only 231 more days to go!

Last Thursday, I testified before the House Committee on Natural Resources on a topic that I have worked on for years: restoring New England’s fisheries and commercial fish populations.

The topic is as important today as it was when I started working on it in 1989, if not more: our fish species continue to face immense pressure with a number of stocks still in terrible condition after a decade of concerted effort and the region’s fishing communities and fishermen continue to face unacceptable levels of business uncertainty and volatility. At the same time, there are some positive signs in the fishing industry that are critical to build on rather than  continuing to focus on the past.

There were not any commercial fishermen on the panel before the Natural Resources Committee, which was a lost opportunity for the panel to hear what’s working and what’s not working for the working fleets.  In any event,  I appreciated the opportunity to voice CLF’s support for rebuilding a vibrant New England fishery.

Below find the full text of my testimony. Or, if you like, you can find a .pdf here.

****

Chairman Hastings, and Ranking Member Markey, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

My name is Peter Shelley. I am a senior attorney with New England’s Conservation Law Foundation, the oldest regional conservation advocacy group in the nation. I have worked on federal fishery management issues in New England since 1989.

Next to my computer at work, I have a post-it note with formula on it:

31 billion (dollars more in fish product sales) + 500,000 (new jobs) +

2.2 billion (more dollars flowing to America’s fishermen and their communities).

Those are the results that rebuilt fisheries in this country could produce. Even if the country could only reach half those numbers, rebuilding fisheries would be an important national strategic objective.

Those were the goals Congress had when it overwhelmingly passed the Magnuson Reauthorization Act in the Bush Administration in 2006.

To get to those goals, I believe, Congress needs to do three things:

1. Allow the current law to work and allow the regional councils and the agencies to implement it — it’s only just begun to take effect.
2. Fund the Act so it can work, perhaps on the order of three times the current appropriation for the essential tasks of stock assessments, monitoring, and data collection, and
3. Invest in our working waterfronts and coastal communities so they will be there to benefit from a healthy, restored ocean.

In my view, three of the bills before the Committee today are aligned with those actions. The other five bills, notwithstanding the good intentions of their sponsors, are not.

The Coastal Jobs Creation Act, sponsored by Representatives Pallone and Pingree, is a great piece of legislation with broad public support. The infrastructure and capacity investments the bill identifies are essential to our maritime and fishery future and will be repaid many times over. H.R. 594 should be supported by the Committee.

Rep. Frank’s Asset Forfeiture Fund bill and Rep. Keating’s Strengthen Fisheries bill also have merit.  These two bills are the only ones before the Committee today that make an effort to identify new funding streams for the fisheries science and data collection that is critically needed in the regions. HR 2753 also has merit but no new funding source.

In my opinion, the other four major bills before the Committee, H.R. 1646, 2304, 2772, and 3061, would move this country farther from our common goals, perhaps out of reach.

Without exception, they

–impose new costs and mandates for marginal benefits and without new funding
–create more business uncertainty and volatility for fishermen
–require substantial new regulations and guidelines
–cause more procedural delay in the management process
–mandate that councils take higher risks than they might deem advisable
–and eliminate one of the only market-driven and de-regulatory tools in the management toolbox—the LAPPs.

Finally, by providing the least protection to the weakest fish populations, these four bills actually increase the probabilities of future stock failures and job losses in my opinion.

I think that they could put New England’s groundfisheries right back in the 20-year deep ditch they have just now started to climb out of.

The first New England groundfishing season using a management plan in full compliance with the new Reauthorization Act requirements ended April 2011.

The net profits to the small business boat owners that year are reported to have increased $10.8 million—in a year when quotas were significantly cut, the Council started an entirely new management program, and diesel prices went up 30%.

If the New England Council had not shifted to the “sector” catch share program they now use, the economic estimates were that the fleet might lose 15 million dollars.

As stated in a letter sent to the New England Congressional delegation on Nov. 14, 109 fishing captains –- some of N.E.’s best small business owners in the groundfishery –- want to retain the current catch share program and management program.

By my count, these folks have seen rules changes on average every four months from March 1994 to May 2010. They think that’s enough and I tend to agree with them. They believe they can make the Magnuson Act work and I agree with them there as well.

These four bills do not directly address one of the three specific things those knowledgeable fishermen have asked for in their letter to the delegation.

1) Management stability
2) New opportunities to target rebuilt fish stocks and reduce operations costs
3) Funding to improve and increase frequency of stock assessments to support effective management

Despite the often heated rhetoric, it is clear to me that more New England fishermen are starting to have some hope based on the success of the sectors program. These fishermen now need regulatory stability so they can continue to grow their businesses.

Moreover, there are strong signs that the Magnuson Act Reauthorization is working around the country. Overfishing is finally stopping and many fish stocks are growing, sometimes rapidly.

I am confident that  conditions will continue to improve if the course is continued and not weakened. Decades of overfishing can’t be turned around overnight. Full recovery will take time and patience and there will be some very rough spots ahead. we can get through them without new law and when statutory changes are needed, such as with the Canadian trans-boundary issue last year in New England, precise and surgical changes can be made that minimize the ever present risk of unintended consequences.

In 1976, Congress created a fishery management council system, which is unique in the country and one that many skeptics thought couldn’t work. But the system brings regional and local values and local political accountability to these complex and multi-faceted fishery decisions and management actions and risks get adjusted for local conditions.  In New England, the Council system is starting to work for more and more fisheries and fishermen.

I urge the Committee to continue to trust the council system and the agencies with these tough management decisions without statutory micromanagement. I also urge the Committee to fund the agencies and programs so they can succeed.

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.

Catch up with the latest news from TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. TalkingFish.org aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• November 30: “There’s something wrong with this picture” – CLF’s Peter Shelley blogs about Governor Patrick’s recent request for $21 million in federal fisheries disaster assistance for Massachusetts and how that request not only lacks sufficient evidence to show a $21 million loss, but also threatens to divert attention and scarce funding from the real problems – and opportunities for improvement – in the region’s fisheries.
• December 2: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, December 2″ – A roundup of the latest news that will interest TalkingFish.org readers. This week: more opinions on stability and groundfish management, a funding request for acoustic-based fish stock assessments, oyster die-off from ocean acidification, and the Nature Conservancy’s work to create sustainable fisheries in the Pacific.

Rotten eggs and black mayonnaise – sights and smells that, to the dread of many, are becoming increasingly common across Cape Cod. Over the 30 years, increased development and insufficient wastewater treatment systems have degraded the quality of Cape Cod’s waters. CLF, in association with Buzzards Bay Coalition, are working to clean up the Cape – work that was recently covered by David Abel in The Boston Globe.

The eggs and mayonnaise (a description David used to open his piece) are but two signs of a growing body of evidence, both visible and disturbing, of degraded water quality. While visitors and residents depend upon Cape Cod’s pristine waterways – suitable for swimming, conducive to ocean life – instead they find ponds and bays that, in warm months, can be covered in a film of algae, while the water itself turns an opaque copper color.

This degradation is the consequence of too much nitrogen, the result of improperly treated  wastewater, primarily from the Cape’s preponderance of septic tanks. In the Cape’s loose, sandy soils, wastewater moves quickly through the ground, and iscarried into the bays and estuaries before it can be adequately filtered. The region’s economy, ecology, recreation and beauty have all suffered as a consequence – and will suffer more if stakeholders continue to delay action on a clean up plan.

In September, our staff at CLF, together with Buzzards Bay Coalition, filed a federal lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency. Our claim: that the EPA failed to fulfill its responsibilities to oversee a regional water quality plan as required by the Clean Water Act. This lawsuit was CLF’s second showing EPA’s failure to address the Cape’s nitrogen pollution problem. The first, concerning point sources, was filed in August, 2010, and can be found here.

Why is this so important? The regional plan under question has not been updated since 1978, despite predictions at the time about the environmental risks of unchecked nitrogen pollution. Today, the consequences of decades of inaction are clear: badly degraded waterways, with mounting costs for solutions and little time left to ponder them while the region’s ecology and economy hang in the balance..

The answer, CLF argues, is a legally enforceable, coordinated blueprint to clean up the Cape. “It’s our firm belief that a coordinated regional approach is necessary – not individual towns trying to solve the problems on their own,” says Christopher Kilian, a senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation as quoted in The Boston Globe article.

The approach EPA will ultimately take is the subject of ongoing negotiations between CLF and the Buzzards Bay Coalition, EPA and Barnstable County officials. A report to the Court is due December 6th. Stay tuned.

For more on CLF’s efforts on cleaning up the Cape, read our release on our recent lawsuit, filed with the Buzzards Bay Coalition.

You can also find out more at the website of the Buzzards Bay Coalition.

Catch up with the latest news from TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. TalkingFish.org aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• November 16: “Glad to see New England fishermen support the sector system, take back their fishery” – CLF’s Peter Shelley editorializes on the recent letter from over one hundred fishermen asking lawmakers to stop calling for the dismantling of the groundfish sector system and urging them to work on improving the system instead.
• November 17: “Jud Crawford on what recent menhaden decisions mean” – The latest installment in TalkingFish.org’s “Ask an Expert” feature interviews Jud Crawford, science and policy manager for the Pew Environment Group, about the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s recent decision to implement measures to protect Atlantic menhaden.
• November 18: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, November 18″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest TalkingFish.org readers. This week: an editorial on fisherman innovation, making “the deadliest catch” less deadly, fishermen ask politicians to back off of sectors, and Governor Patrick requests disaster assistance funding for Massachusetts fishermen.

Yesterday, New England’s groundfishermen—from Rhode Island to Maine and from day boat to trip boat—took back their fishery from the politicians. In a letter addressed to the New England Congressional delegation, more than one hundred boat owners stated clearly that what they need most now is stability, profitability, and flexibility. In one of those moments that have happened too rarely over the past many years, all I can say is  “amen.”

The fishing port of Gloucester (Photo credit: NOAA)

The letter was written in response to politicians’ calls for the dismantling of the sector system for the groundfish fishery, a management system that went into effect in May 2010 and has been lambasted ever since by a small vocal minority of fishermen. While critics of sector management frame the system as if it puts New England’s iconic groundfish fishery in danger of being controlled by only a few colossal corporate boats, the letter reminds the delegation that the entire groundfish fleet in New England is a small business fleet. There are some bigger small businesses and some smaller small businesses, but there is no danger of takeover by factory ships or foreign fleets. The small business owners who signed this letter say that the politicians are putting their well-being at risk by calling for the overturn of the sector system.

These boat owners were likely appreciative of the Massachusetts delegation’s intent in trying to intervene on the industry’s behalf. But in the letter, they demonstrate that they are of one mind that the new sector system is one they can work with, that they want to work with. The outcomes they have been fighting for–stability, profitability, and flexibility–are what groundfish sectors are all about. Almost no one who fished under the old days-at-sea management system wants to return to that failed program.

There are still many groundfish management problems facing the New England Council, and Congress could certainly help resolve them by securing funding to improve fisheries data collection, stock assessments, gear research and development, and to cover the cost of on-board monitors. Senator Kerry has introduced important legislation that may well help support these needed initiatives, and it would be nice to see thoughtful discussion and action on these real needs in Congress.

The message of the unequivocal and unprecedented fishing industry letter sent yesterday is that the problems of the few in the fishery should not be used to paint the management system as fundamentally flawed. With this letter, a diverse group of fishermen publicly defended the sector system and implicitly pushed back strongly against both those who have attempted to repeal it through lawsuits and those Congressional offices that have sought to politicize the fishery. If Washington ends up breaking the regionally-designed sector program by its interventions, then Washington will own the results.  But for these fishermen, New England is on the right course. Again, amen.