Clean Water Act failing in new climate

BY RYAN P. KELLY & MARGARET R. CALDWELLThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently gave California some tough love in the form of a ghastly report card on water quality along our coasts and in our rivers and streams: The state’s water pollution seems to have gotten much worse, with the number of polluted water bodies skyrocketing between 2006 and 2010.Some of this change is due to more aggressive testing; the blame for the rest is solely our own. And while this news is bad enough on its own, what’s often not discussed is that all of that polluted water ends up downstream in the coastal ocean, already hard hit by decades of abuse.This is killing the goose that lays the golden state’s egg. Californians depend upon our coastal oceans more than you might realize. As of 2000, over three-quarters of Californians lived in coastal counties, and the state’s coastal economy accounted for $42.9 billion and 700,000 jobs. These numbers have surely risen since 2000, but we’ve failed to be the stewards of these waters that their value – economic, aesthetic and otherwise – deserve.And the threats to ocean resources keep coming, from climate change to the collapse of so many fisheries stocks worldwide. One challenge we are just beginning to understand is ocean acidification, a consequence of the fact that the oceans absorb a large fraction of the carbon dioxide we continue to pump into the atmosphere. This has changed the chemistry of the entire world’s ocean, making it more acidic. Because this increased acidity dissolves the hard shells of many of the world’s marine creatures (e.g., oysters, mussels, and many forms of plankton), these creatures and the food webs of which they are a part face a difficult future.The horrible air quality of the 1970s is an obvious analogy to the state of California’s waters today. While the state still has severe air quality problems in places – Bakersfield, the Central Valley, and the Los Angeles region stand out – three decades of concerted effort to clean up our air has led to significantly improved air quality for most of our state. And the benefits of such action are enormous: An EPA report earlier this year showed the direct benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments dwarfed the costs of implementation by a 30-to-1 ratio. This month’s final EPA report on water quality only confirms what we already know, that California must do better when it comes to our coastal ocean.Read the rest of the opinion from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

An interview with ICES guest instructor Ray Hilborn

All about Bayesian inference in fisheries science​ICES Training Programme recently offered Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Fisheries Science, conducted by Ray Hilborn and Samu Mäntyniemi. It was attended by 26 students from 17 countries.Ray Hilborn, one of today’s leading experts on fisheries, is a professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, specializing in natural resource management and conservation. He serves as an advisor to several international fisheries commissions and agencies as well as teaching graduate and undergraduate courses in conservation, fishery stock assessment, and risk analysis. He is author of Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, with Carl Walters, and The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data, with Marc Mangel.What is Bayesian statistics?Bayesian statistics is one variety of statistics. Depending on how you divide it, you could say there are three primary schools. Beginning statistics courses centre on the concept of the null hypothesis and whether the data support rejection of the null hypothesis; usually, statistics are reported so that the probability of the null hypothesis is false. Then, there is the probability that you can reject the null hypothesis, and that’s often called Frequentive statistics. Finally, there’s another school, the Likelihoodist, that deals primarily with the extent to which the data support competing hypotheses. It’s a more interesting statistic because it realizes that you often have multiple different hypotheses, which is interesting to the extent that the data support the different hypotheses.Bayesian statistics is, in a sense, much like the Likelihoodist, but it goes the additional step of actually assigning probabilities to competing hypotheses. The reason that’s so important is that, when you are giving advice to decision-makers, they want to know what’s the chance that something will happen. It turns out that Bayesian statistics is the only form of statistics that philosophically claims that they are probabilities. Going back – I guess I first ran into Bayesian statistics about 35 years ago – you find that Bayesian statistics really dominated business schools because they were built around decision-making.Read the rest here.

South Coast ocean closures not approved by state's law office

Written by Ed Zieralski

In what is a blow to environmental groups who seek fishing closures off the coast of California, the marine protected areas called for by theMarine Life Protection Act’s South Coast Region have been disapproved by the state’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL).The third set of marine protected areas established by the MLPA process will be delayed by months or more, according to a high-ranking Department of Fish and Game official who requested anonymity. The OAL has ordered the Department of Fish and Game and the MLPA Initiative team to correct what it calls deficiencies in the MLPA’s final documents. The flaws must be fixed before the closures are approved, according to a document released Friday by the OAL.The OAL listed several reasons it did not approve the closures. Included among them is the MLPA staff’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting alternative proposals for closures. Another reason listed is the MLPA’s Initiative team’s failure to adequately respond to all of the public comments regarding the proposed closures.The ruling came 17 days before the entire process will be on trial in San Diego Superior Court. Bob Fletcher, a former state Fish and Game assistant director and one-time president of the Sportfishing Association of California, and the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans sued the MLPA Initiative team for what the suit calls a mishandling of the process. The trial is set for Sept. 26.Read the rest on SignOnSanDiego.com.

For Healthy, Sustainable Fish: Buy American

Fish on Fridays by Michael Conathan

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered an address to Congress laying out his plan for job creation in America. In the most recent version of this column, I did the same, at least for the fishing industry. Though admittedly my work lacked some of the pomp and circumstance of a joint address to Congress, it suggests one key to fishing jobs is greater investment in fisheries science, which would reduce the uncertainty forcing regulators to keep catch limits low, thereby allowing fishermen to catch more fish. That’s a classic supply-side solution. But there’s another side to that equation as well: greater demand.American consumers are comfortable enough with the concept of supply and demand that Big Oil’s backers can use it as false logic to make a case for increased offshore oil and gas drilling. If we produce more oil, the argument goes, we will increase supply, and prices will come down. Never mind that oil is an internationally traded commodity, the price of which is heavily influenced by financial speculators and an international cartel over which American consumers have exactly zero influence. Also never mind that the nonpartisan Energy Information Association has declared unequivocally that increasing drilling will have no impact on gasoline prices.Fair play in that it’s tough to know which is harder to understand: macroeconomics or ecosystem-based management and fisheries sustainability. Theories of how to get our country’s financial house in order and how to buy a guilt-free filet may occur on slightly different levels, but at their core, they are equally complex.Fortunately, when it comes to fish, there’s a simple answer that will help spur the economy and lead to more sustainable dining. It’ll be better for your health, too. Put down your seafood wallet card for a minute and pay attention. Here it comes, in two words. Ready?BUY AMERICAN.The simple fact is, despite the seemingly endless barrage of doom-and-gloom stories about the future of fisheries, the United States leads the world in ending overfishing and managing our resource sustainably. This year, a regulation took effect that will ensure every fish sold by a U.S. commercial fisherman is managed with scientifically justified catch limits. In layman’s terms, this means overfishing is now illegal.Read the rest of the story here.

NOAA Fisheries Releases 2010 Fisheries of the U.S. Report

Today, NOAA Fisheries released its Fisheries of the United States 2010 report.Fisheries of the U.S. is an annual snapshot of the landings and value of U.S. fisheries. This year it contains some good news - landings were up and the value of those landings was up. U.S. commercial fishermen landed 8.2 billion pounds of seafood valued at $4.5 billion in 2010, an increase of 200 million pounds over 2009 and an increase in value of more than $600 million from 2009.Today's report also highlights the top U.S. ports including our leader for the 22nd consecutive year, the Alaska port of Dutch Harbor-Unalaska.  And, for the 11th consecutive year, New Bedford, Mass., had the highest valued catch, due in large part to the sea scallop fishery.Another aspect of the report is seafood consumption. In 2010, the average American ate 15.8 pounds of fish and shellfish, a slight decline from the 2009 figure of 16 pounds.  On a global scale, the U.S. continues to be third-ranked for consuming fish and shellfish, behind China and Japan.  Imported seafood continues to increase to help fill consumer demand - about 86 percent of the seafood consumed in the U.S. was imported from overseas.As Eric Schwaab, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, said in our announcement today:These increases in fish landings and value are good news for our nation's fishermen and for fishing communities, where jobs depend on healthy fish stocks. We know fishermen are making sacrifices now to rebuild fish populations, and these efforts, combined with good science and management, support sustainable jobs for Americans.Read the full report online.

Protections already strong for forage fish

D.B. Pleschner , executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, had the following piece run in the Monterey County Herald on Saturday...

By D.B. PLESCHNER

Guest commentary

Posted: 08/27/2011

If you didn't know better, you might think that forage fish, like sardines and squid, are on the brink of destruction in California.

That's what some activists imply. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

California's coastal pelagic "forage" fisheries are the most protected in the world, with one of the lowest harvest rates.

In addition to strict fishing quotas, the Marine Life Protection Act has implemented no-take reserves, including many near bird rookeries and haul out sites to protect forage for marine life.

But activists are pushing even more restrictions in the form of Assembly Bill 1299.

California already provides a science-based process to manage forage species. The federal Pacific Fishery Management Council is also developing a California Current Ecosystem Management Plan, covering the entire West Coast, not just California waters. Further, the federal Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan that governs these fish adopted an ecosystem-based management policy more than a decade ago.

To initiate new legislation like AB 1299 as if no regulation exists is fiscally irresponsible and disrespectful of California's management history.

The National Marine Fisheries Service voiced concern about the bill's redundancy and overlap with federal management, pointing out that it could actually impede ecosystem-based management.

AB 1299 won't protect forage species because virtually all range far beyond California state waters, which only extend three miles from shore.

But the bill does jeopardize the future of California's historic wetfish fisheries, the backbone of California's fishing economy. AB 1299 restrictsCalifornia fishermen unfairly, because virtually all the forage species listed are actively managed or monitored by the federal government and most species are harvested along the entire West Coast.

In this economic crisis, why would California squander millions of dollars — and sacrifice thousands of jobs — on an unfunded mandate that duplicates existing laws?

Apparently this doesn't matter to activists, whose rhetoric claims that overfishing is occurring in California now and a change is needed.

AB 1299 proponents have made many false claims about forage species. For example, they referenced a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration evaluation of the California Current Ecosystem, predicting a downward trend for some marine life, including squid, but failed to explain that this report was simply a draft. The evaluation excluded southern California waters, where 80 percent of the squid harvest occurs. A record spawning event also occurred in 2010.

Consider sardines. After their decline in the 1940s, fishery managers instituted an ecosystem-based management plan that accounts for forage needs before setting harvest quotas, and reduces quotas in concert with natural declines in the resource. The harvest quota for the West Coast plummeted 74 percent from 2007 to 2011.

But activists embellished an NOAA graph to "prove" their claim that the current sardine population decline was due to overfishing. The marine scientist who developed the graph pointed out their error, stating, "You can rest assured that the U.S. has not exceeded the overfishing limit based on the rules in place today."

In fact, the majority of California's fishing community — municipalities, harbor districts, recreational and commercial fishing groups, seafood companies and knowledgeable fishery scientists — oppose AB 1299, seeing it as a disingenuous attempt to curtail sustainable fisheries unnecessarily.

D.B. Pleschner is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, a nonprofit designed to promote sustainable wetfish resources. This commentary reflects his opinion. Opposing views are invited to respond to mheditor@montereyherald.com.

Fish on Fridays: The Newest Redlist Species: Commercial Fishermen

By Michael Conathan

Sustainability is the ultimate buzzword in fisheries and it’s led to the ubiquitous red-yellow-green list as one of the most popular means of trying to present consumers with a simple yet comprehensive way of determining whether or not they should order a certain kind of fish. Yet on the wallet cards that attempt to provide an accurate breakdown, there’s one species that’s never talked about: commercial fishermen.

There's no question that the number of jobs available in many fisheries declined in recent years, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that this will continue. But unlike other industries in which job loss is driven by economic decline or market contraction, in fisheries, productivity is limited by just one thing: fish. Not enough fish means not enough fishing.

And anything that causes a decline in jobs is ripe for political pressure to end the slide at any cost, particularly in a down economy. Yet here's the fundamental problem: There's not a single politician in the world—not a president or prime minister or poobah—who can regulate, dictate, or legislate more fish into existence.

This hasn’t stopped some politicians, though, from pointing fingers in an attempt to score points with their constituents, who understandably blame low catch levels on the regulators who set the limits on how much fish can be harvested. These same regulators are under a legal mandate to set catches at or below levels recommended by scientists based on the best information they can gather.

Complicating matters is that at the same time these strict catch-limit policies have taken effect, a new management system touted mainly by environmental groups has gained quite a bit of traction with federal regulators. Catch shares is an overarching term for a management system that, in one form or another, divides up the total amount of fish available for harvest in a given year and allocates it to permit holders annually, usually on the basis of their historical landings. Fishermen can then either fish their allocation, or lease or sell it to their colleagues. Think of it as a cap-and-trade system for fish. A Fish on Fridays column from April has more on the details of catch shares.

Read the rest here.

Scientist calls to end rule of NOAA

By Richard GainesStaff Writer

Influential marine scientist Brian Rothschild has charged NOAA with adopting an "unnecessarily hard-line," wrong, wasteful and job-destroying interpretation of Congress' intent for managing America's fisheries.Finding no accountability, "no master plan" or will to align policy more closely with what was intended and no hope for redress from the judiciary, Rothschild — who is based at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and is one of New England's most respected fishing advocates — proposed that Congress create an ad hoc commission to restructure fisheries management in the Northeast.Rothschild issued his blunt judgments about the performance of the government and the courts in the aftermath of a June ruling by a federal judge in Boston that upheld the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's catch share policy management system, which data shows is bringing about a consolidation of the industry and forcing out small, independent boats and businesses.Rothschild's full commentary is reprinted in full on Page 8 of today's Times; it was also published in the Wednesday Standard-Times of New Bedford, which is adjacent to Rothschild's Dartmouth base.A venerable waterman, scientist and linchpin between the Massachusetts fishing industry, academia and the political system, Rothschild's words are read carefully across the country.Rothschild, who turns 77 Sunday, was NOAA's senior scientist during the 1970s, when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was rolled out. He was also the much-preferred choice of the industry and many members of Congress to head the National Marine Fisheries Service, but Jane Lubchenco, President Obama's choice to lead NOAA in 2009, instead went for Maryland state wildlife official Eric Schwaab, never explaining her strange choice.In his op-ed column, Rothschild absolved Judge Rya Zobel of much responsibility for affirming the government's groundfishery policies, writing that she was "working within the bounds of standards established in administrative law."Rothschild wrote that the two cases handled by Zobel, brought by the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford and fishermen from every Atlantic coast state from Maine through North Carolina, showed that the judicial system does not always have the wherewithal to align the "executive's implementation of laws with congressional intent."Certainly, Rothschild wrote, Congress did not intend NOAA to create a system that wastes 100,000 tons of fish a year worth $300 million at the dock, or $1.2 billion to the economy, while eliminating "hundreds if not thousands of jobs." And it did not intend to disregard the economic and social impacts, unfairly reward some groups at the expense of others and "ignore valid scientific findings and suppress discussion regarding the magnitude of fish stocks."Congressman John Tierney and Barney Frank, both Democrats, and Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican, agreed with Rothschild's view of NOAA, as did the consumer group, Food & Water Watch, which added that "Congress needs to step in and put an end to the agency's abuse of any discretion that it has ..."NOAA did not respond to a request for comment."NOAA continues to send a clear message that it is unwilling to make the system fair for our fishermen," Tierney said in a prepared statement to the Times. "I agree with Mr. Rothschild, that 'protecting fishing jobs is a priority' and that Congress must take every available action to ensure that our fishing communities are not driven out of business by NOAA's inflexible interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act."I am committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to protect our local fishing economy and push for a change in leadership at NOAA," added Tierney, whose district includes Gloucester, all of Cape Ann and much of the North Shore.In a telephone interview, Frank, who represents New Bedford and seeks Rothschild's counsel on fisheries issues, said he believes Congress was moving closer to a bipartisan consensus to rein in NOAA by the limiting statutory changes to the Atlantic and Gulf regions, where grievances are greatest.Read the rest here.