Some of us lament a world where fake reality TV plots, uber-famous starlets way below my age demographic and head-exploding talk show hosts rule the airwaves, as it can be a bit difficult to get the media spotlight focused past the eye candy and on “the real issues.” You know – the substantive, grown up policy stuff like genuine efforts to bring scientists, industry, citizen groups and government together to solve ocean acidification, species loss, declining fisheries, coastal erosion, and red tides.

Well, say no more, ladies and gentlemen, because the National Ocean Council has brought us the sleekest, the sexiest, the most seductive and alluring draft ocean policy implementation plan of this – or any other – presidential administration.

Am I joking? Maybe a little. But, let me know if you really want to sit down for a 45 minute Powerpoint presentation and discussion that analyzes, for example, the structure of a regional planning body in a comprehensive regional ocean planning process. Because it turns out that real issue is actually a very important component of starting to develop agreement between large companies, day boat fishermen, coastal developers and beach-loving families on how to keep oceans clean, healthy and open for business. Not really TMZ-type material.

The National Ocean Policy is really laid out in a 96 page document called the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and on page 32 it details the nine priority objectives that will implement the National Policy. Today the National Ocean Council released a draft implementation plan for those nine priority objectives. This is a big step forward for implementing the National Ocean Policy and will eventually lead to some serious action on issues such as the need to develop ecosystem-based management approaches to cleaning up the polluted runoff that increasing fouls Cape Cod beaches each summer.

The Final Recommendations took a hard working group of 25 agency leaders (see page B-I) and their staff over a year to hold hundreds of meetings, review thousands of comments and interview dozens of business, economic, national defense, scientific and community experts in a process to develop our Nation’s first ever attempt to get all of its various departments and agencies pointed in the same direction and working together to improve ocean health and management. Creating the National Ocean Council and developing the draft implementation plan has taken another year. That’s because improving ocean health and keeping oceans healthy is hard work. Not having healthy oceans and coasts is costly to our economy, causes job loss and destroys livelihoods and communities. So, spend a few moments to check out the draft implementation plan. Help support the National Ocean Policy. Ask your friends, co-workers and elected officials to support the National Ocean Policy.

Power down the big screen and dive into a real issue.

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!

As Tricia Jedele recently reported, the US Senate is debating the funding for ocean management programs this week. The National Ocean Policy is certainly one Obama Administration initiative that deserves adequate funding and particularly, as we in New England know better than most, the program for comprehensive ocean planning is one that we can all benefit from. Ocean plans in Massachusetts and Rhode Island are going to be instrumental in helping to protect ocean habitat and maintain healthy and safe coasts while the uses of the ocean increase. A New England comprehensive ocean planning process that engages all New England states and relevant federal agencies, will make sure that current uses like fishing are respected and will help to responsibly develop clean, renewable wind energy projects that also have the benefit of reducing carbon pollution and create new jobs. Who can argue with all of that?

Only in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body can one person make a political statement out of opposing a regional process that seeks to bring the fishing, energy, shipping and other industries, scientists, community leaders, recreational boaters and divers, wildlife advocates and state and federal agency managers together to help decide the best way to use and protect our Greatest Natural Asset. Ill-formed political gambits will usually receive a well-deserved response — and this one has. Conservation groups and ocean users across the country have responded to tell the Senate to stop the attacks on ocean planning and get on with the program. We’re not done with this bill yet, and surely more attacks will come in the future, but it is clear that the National Ocean Policy has its political base as well.

Last year, Senator Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced inconspicuous amendments to various appropriations bills designed to delay federal regulation of carbon dioxide.  Word on the D.C. street is that tomorrow Senator Murkowski will take aim at the oceans when she introduces an amendment on the Senate floor for debate.   The language we anticipate is something along the lines of “No funds shall be expended to implement any provisions of coastal and marine spatial planning under Executive Order 13547 (the President’s National Ocean Policy).”  The Murkowski amendment might also try to stop funding for longstanding coastal zone management programs that are a benefit to coastal communities, maritime safety and ocean-related commerce.   Interestingly enough, Alaska’s coastal program was eliminated last July.  With 36,000 miles of coast line to worry about, the Alaska legislature adjourned without reauthorizing its own coastal program.  Now that Alaska has lost all state control of its own coastline (no more federal consistency review over oil and gas projects, no more federal funding, no more state and local input for coastal policy and siting decisions that impact the Alaskan coastal zone), it seems that Alaska doesn’t want any other state to have the ability to responsibly manage its natural coastal and ocean resources.  This doesn’t sound like lawmaking.  It’s just sour grapes.  http://www.adn.com/2011/05/15/1864275/adjournment-dooms-coastal-zone.html#ixzz1b4CO5PMp

The Congress creates our federal laws. The Administrative branch creates regulations. The National Ocean Policy has yet to change either. Of course, you wouldn’t have learned this if you had sat through the House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing on the National Ocean Policy this morning. The rhetoric from Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) and the Republican members – who tried really hard to follow the current GOP playbook by depicting any effort by the Obama Administration as a “job-killing regulation” – claimed that the National Ocean Policy is “…ocean zoning (which) could place huge sections of the ocean off limits to activities not ‘zoned’ as government-approved.” The argument was less than convincing.

Massachusetts’ Representative Ed Markey (D-Malden) knows what many of us have learned from the value of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan: “Just like other plans, comprehensive ocean planning would allow everyone with an interest in our coasts and oceans to participate in a transparent, decision-making process to determine how to best utilize an increasingly busy, productive and important national resource.  This would increase predictability and certainty for existing and new users of these areas and improve ocean health. Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control. You can do it but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences.”

Well said, Ed. John Bullard, former mayor of New Bedford and someone with real experience in ocean planning, also did an excellent job making the case for rational thought and comprehensive ocean planning.

Still, the overall lesson from today’s hearing is that smart ocean planning has yet to inflame Congressional passions. We’re still hoping that the seductive merits of interagency coordination, collaboration and cooperation between ocean users, a productive and inclusive approach to public involvement and an increased ability to make science-based policy decisions will catch the eye of elected officials in Congress, the states and in communities across the nation. We are forced to admit, however, that the solid work of working together is bland stuff compared to the sex appeal of outlandish claims that the federal government is going to take away your fishing pole.

The Mass Ocean Plan is already showing the promise of good planning and cooperation. Rhode Island’s Ocean SAMP will be integral to creating a new industry of clean renewable energy. The National Ocean Policy can do the same for communities across the country. We need the Congress to stay calm and move it forward.

With the record setting temperatures this past July, thousands of New Englanders decided to make their escape to the beach. Unfortunately, these relief-seekers were met with an unpleasant surprise: many found that their favorite spot was closed due to high pollution levels.

A place to escape is one of the numerous ways that New England’s ocean improves our quality of life: From fresh local seafood to over $60 billion a year of economic benefit in fishing and tourism to the promise of clean energy from offshore wind, our oceans provide us with ample bounty. However, this summer’s pollution problems are a stark reminder that we can’t take a healthy ocean for granted.

Today, we’re asking you to stand up for our oceans by standing up for the National Ocean Policy.

Thousands of miles away from New England, a freshman congressman from Texas is mounting a sneak attack on our ocean’s health. This congressman is threatening to cut funding for the National Ocean Policy – a policy designed to clean up our beaches and coastal waters, protect habitat for marine life, restore our fisheries and fishing industry, and promote responsible development of clean, renewable ocean energy.

Click here to urge your Representative in Congress to stop this sneak attack on our ocean.

Thankfully, Congress adjourned for the summer, but a vote could take place as soon as they return! So make sure your concerns are at the top of their list. Urge your reps to stand up for clean, healthy oceans and thriving coastal communities by supporting the National Ocean Policy today!

This is the fifth and last post in our Shark Week Series. Happy Shark Week, everyone!

Many rational people are very afraid of sharks. We can tell ourselves that the odds of attack are extremely low, especially in New England, but the primal image of the gaping maw and jagged teeth is hard to drive away with logic. As David Ropeik points out in his thought-provoking book, How Risky Is It, Really?, a risk feels bigger if you think it can happen to you, regardless of the odds. Sharks attacks are easy to imagine. However, if you look at the numbers, you should be way more worried about the drive to the beach, or lightning. The odds of death by shark each year in the U.S. are 1 in 3,748,067. You are way more likely to die from a dog attack. Here are some other things that are deadlier than a shark:

• Car accident – you have a 1 in 84 chance of dying in a car crash each year
• Death by sun/heat exposure – 1 in 13,729 per year
• Death by fireworks – 1 in 340,733 per year

I do worry about sharks. Almost anyone who spends time in the ocean thinks about them. But I worry a lot more about getting sick from polluted water.

Potentially harmful bacterial pollution enters our coastal environment in partially or untreated wastewater and stormwater, in septic and cesspool waste, and from animal waste on or near beaches. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, illnesses caused by recreational use of contaminated water are on the increase. For the fifth year in a row, beach closure or advisory days in 2010 topped 24,000 nationally, the majority which are due to bacterial contamination. Swimming in pathogen-contaminated water can result in respiratory infections, pink eye, stomach flu and many other health problems.

Many popular beaches have water-testing programs to help keep swimmers safe, but the testing is generally not daily, and the results are not “real time.” It’s a good idea to avoid the water during or after a storm, when bacteria levels are likely to be higher, since some of our stormwater is untreated. Worse still, many towns and cities in New England have antiquated Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) systems that are designed to release untreated sewage and stormwater into our rivers and oceans during storms. Some beaches close down as a result of storms, without even being tested, if it is known that CSOs will be flowing into the water. Fortunately, some CSOs are being upgraded and eliminated. But for now, there is still a very real risk of illness from swimming in contaminated water.

There is risk in everything we do. I’m willing to risk an encounter with one of the “Men in Gray Suits” if it means I get to keep surfing. But I’m going to be very careful about swimming in polluted water.

My point is not that we should be too afraid to enjoy our amazing beaches and ocean life. But, that we should work to protect them. Join CLF in advocating for our National Ocean Policy, in protecting the Clean Water Act, and in ensuring we leave a legacy of protecting these special places.

Great white sharks off the coast of Massachusetts. (Photo credit: Green Massachusetts)

Let’s be honest. When we talk about great white sharks, we are usually talking about their appetites. White sharks have been found with a number of thought-provoking objects in their stomachs, including a partial suit of armor and an engine block. But what they really like is large, fatty ocean going animals: tuna, seals and sea lions, rays, whale carcasses. These are not always easy to catch, so sharks employ a number of hunting strategies, including a sneak attack from behind (shudder) and rushing up from the depths (double shudder). So, while their feeding style can be quite lively, and more than a little intimidating, scientists believe it is usually a case of “mistaken identity” when a shark bites a human, not mindless, malicious predation. White sharks are visual predators, and sometimes we humans do a fairly good seal impersonation. Often, once the shark realizes there has been a misunderstanding, it will move on to something tastier. Don’t get me wrong; I am not recommending anyone take their chances in the water with these big fish. If there is a shark sighting at your favorite beach, please stay out until you hear it’s safe again. I know they’re out there, but it gives me a bit of comfort to think that if they REALLY wanted to eat us then we’d know about it by now.

Shark survival, and hopefully I’ve convinced you by now that this is a good thing, is dependent on a robust, thriving food chain. Overfishing, coastal pollution (especially nutrient pollution), and the byproducts of power generation are severely impairing our near shore and blue water ecosystems. Coastal areas function as nurseries for ocean going fish, birds, and other marine life. So a small area of degradation can have a big effect out to sea. Protecting sensitive coastal ecosystems is protecting the bottom of the food chain. The things at the bottom feeds the things we like to eat (shellfish, cod, striped bass), the things we like to see (seals, whales), and things we maybe don’t want around, but are good anyway (sharks). CLF is working to protect these important ecosystems. From supporting our National Ocean Policy, to fighting dirty emissions that create unhealthy acidic water, to promoting healthy estuaries, CLF is on the forefront of efforts to protect our oceans and keep their waters clean and productive for generations to come.

A shortfin mako shark, one of the very few warm-blooded fish. (Photo credit: Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries Service)

Great whites, makos, porbeagles, and salmon sharks are among the very few warm-blooded fish. I’m not going to hug them, though, since it makes them more efficient predators. Their ability to thermoregulate makes them more tolerant of cool water and allows their muscles to respond more quickly than their cold-blooded relatives. This is just one of traits that make sharks such a diverse and interesting group of animals. Here are some others:

• Most sharks don’t have tongues, but they have taste buds lining their mouths and throats
• Some sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs
• Sharks live in saltwater, but some species are able to spend a significant amount of time in freshwater, and have been found as far inland as Illinois (Illinois!), in the Mississippi River
• While they do develop cancer (there is a myth that they do not), it is at a much lower rate than other kinds of fish
• Among the varieties of sharks found in New England waters are basking sharks, spiny dogfish, shortfin makos, blacktip sharks, porbeagle sharks, thresher sharks, sandbar sharks, smooth dogfish, and, of course white sharks

This may seem like a lot of sharks to be swimming around with, but most of them are found much farther offshore than us. A rich diversity of species is a great thing. In ecological terms, diversity can be a sign of the robustness of an ecosystem. If one population is struck down by disease or predation then another can fill the role of top predator. Considering the complexities of species diversity and interactions among them is important when managing the multiple uses of our ocean. This is another great example of why Ecosystem Based Management, one of the core strategies in our National Ocean Policy, is the right tool for the job. Click here to write your Governor today to urge them to support this policy, and healthy oceans for all.