A salmon is netted off the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Recently a panel recommended closing large portions of Southern California to fishing.

Courtesy, Debra J. @ Picasa

Earlier this month the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force recommended closing large portions of Southern California coastline to fishing. Areas recommended for closer included Laguna Beach, La Jolla and Point Dume. The panel did; however, suggest that fishing should continue near Point Loma, Palos Verdes Peninsula and parts of Catalina Island. The decision reflects a compromise between conservation interests and those of the fishing community.

The closures are in response to declining fish populations all along the California Coast. The LA Times is reporting rockfish and cod populations “have fallen by as much as 95%. Populations of lobster, sea urchin, squid, sea bass, yellowtail and swordfish have all been in sharp decline. Fisheries experts have argued that some of those species could disappear entirely if steps were not taken to create no-fishing zones where breeding stocks could be replenished.”

Despite the compromise, some members of the fishing community have expressed concern with the economic effects of closing off some locations. Thelog.com a California fishing and boating website, quoted Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California. “Proposal 2 has a high conservation value that is relatively the same as other proposals but would have the least economic impact on southern California — particularly San Diego, where fishing and boating is an integral component of the local economy. The Blue Ribbon Task Force chooses to ignore Proposal 2, in favor of its own version.”

The Blue Ribbon Panel’s decision will be presented to the Fish and Game Commission on Dec 9. The panel’s decision to close parts of California’s coast mirrors other closures around the world. In July 2004, legislation took effect that put an end all fishing in one third of the Great Barrier Reef. Prior to the closure the reef, which stretches 1,430 miles off Australia’s eastern coast, was entirely open to commercial fishing. The fishing was causing major damage to sensitive coral reefs according to National Geographic.

Elsewhere in the world fishing closures have already been proven to replenish fisheries. In 2007, the New York Times reported that fishing closures on Palau’s main island of Babeldaob resulted in more fish. After a decade of overfishing on Palau, a tiny island state 600 miles east of the Philippines, all fishing was halted in 1994. In an interview with Ratu Aisea Katonivere, a traditional Palau chief, he told the New York Times, after a few years without fishing, “The fish are closer and bigger. They are coming back; it’s a miracle.

The Island of Babeldaob

View Larger Map

After a decade of over-fishing, fish are starting to come back to the island of Babeldaob, as a result of limitations on fishing implemented in 1994.

UC Berkeley Lab oceanographers measure how oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A recent study indicates the rate at which the ocean absorbs CO2 may be decreasing.

Courtesy Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory @ flickr

Each year thousands of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) are introduced into the atmosphere by natural and man-made processes. It is well documented that oceans are responsible for soaking up huge quantities of this carbon dioxide. Just like plants remove carbon from the atmosphere when they photosynthesize; oceans act as global carbon dioxide sponges.

Recently, new evidence has surfaced that shows the ocean’s natural mechanism to absorb carbon may be slowing. According to VOA News, Samar Khatiwala, of Columbia University, the lead author of a study, “found a growing imbalance between the amount of man-made carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere and what the oceans, called carbon sinks, are able to handle.”

This is troubling for two reasons. First, as the world produces more carbon dioxide each year, as data suggests we do, the ocean may not be able to keep up with human output.

The other concern is when the decline will stop. When the ocean is saturated with CO2 it becomes acidic. According to National Geographic “more acidic waters are less able to dissolve carbon dioxide.” So, the ocean may not be able to absorb even the natural amount of carbon dioxide if it becomes overly acidic. This equates to an even larger carbon dioxide problem than we already face. The world has natural sponges to offset its own carbon dioxide, but it is possible that human output may even damage that capacity.

Current data by the Scrips Institute CO2 Program shows CO2 levels, which are related to ocean acidity, have steadily risen since the 1960′s.

Currently the ocean is one of the major depositories of carbon dioxide. The ocean currently stockpiles about 150 billion tons of CO2. Carbon dioxide that might otherwise be in the atmosphere. For example, in 2008 the oceans sucked up 2.3 billion tons of carbon. That is the equivalent of six years of U.S. gasoline consumption.

The map above depicts the amount of carbon taken out of the atmosphere by plant life. Along with the ocean itself, plant life also plays a major role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Courtesy, NASA

In terms of numbers, last year the ocean absorbed 2.3 billion tons of carbon according to the study, the most ever. But, compared to the amount of man-made carbon dioxide the ocean’s absorption may have declined by as much as 10 percent, according to the study led by Samar Khatiwala, of Columbia University.

In a broad sense the ocean’s absorption of carbons dioxide directly relates to global warming. If less CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, it will remain in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is attributed to a warming trend in global temperatures. And unfortunately, carbon dioxide can’t dissolve as easily in warmer water. National geographic reports 40 percent of past carbon emissions are absorbed by frigid waters off the coast of Antarctica.

So, if the world’s oceans continue decline in carbon dioxide absorption, a downward spiral involving CO2 and a warming climate could potentially develop.

Sharks are one of the most feared animals in the world. Their power and mystery intrigues and frightens us. However, as humans we should not fear sharks attacks but rather fear for their survival. Over 100 nations around the world currently fish for sharks. And of the 350 or so spices of shark, 79 are in danger of extinction.

The fear of being attacked by a shark in the ocean in greatly overstated. There are on average 82 deaths associated with lightning strikes in the US each year. While only 8 people have ever been killed by unprovoked shark attacks in California since 1926.

Here is a map of the California Counties that have ever had a shark fatal attack.

Source: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida

A Nomura jellyfish off the coast of Little Munson island, Maine. Nomura jellyfish are the largest in the world. Recently they have been apearing in massive numbers off the coast of Japan.

Courtesy, nurpax @ flickr

Major media outlets are featuring stories about the hoards of jellyfish jamming up the Japanese fishing industry. Jellyfish, normally an important part of natural ocean ecosystems, have appeared in massive and disruptive numbers off the coast of Kokonogi, Japan.

An Associated Press article reports the jellyfish phenomenon is costing the Japanese fishing industry up to 30 billion yen ($332 million) a year, “and tens of thousands of Japanese fishermen have sought government compensation” according to Shin-ichi Uye, Japan’s leading scientist on the jellyfish problem.

But, if jellyfish are an natural part of healthy oceans is this really just an irregular year? A close read through most of the articles reveals, several paragraphs down, an explanation for the amount of jellyfish.

Warmer waters, associated with global warming, are allowing jellyfish to reproduce and expand their range. Red orbit.com says, “warming of oceans has allowed some of the almost 2,000 jellyfish species to expand their ranges, appear earlier in the year and increase [in] overall numbers.”

We know the planet’s homeostasis is extremely susceptible to minute factors. It appears now, slow-moving herds of  450 pound jellyfish are just another side-effect of global warming.

The Japanese jellies are particularly problematic. They are known as the Nomura jellyfish, the world’s largest, and can be up to six feet in diameter. They also have the potential to ruin large fish harvests. When caught up in a fisherman’s net, a jellyfish can kill fish caught along with it. The Nomura’s venom can also taint a whole day’s catch.

“Some fishermen have just stopped fishing,” Taiichiro Hamano, told the Associated Press. “When you pull in the nets and see jellyfish, you get depressed.”

Jellyfish like this one, know as the Paper Lantern Medusa, are increasing in range and number all over the world due to warmer ocean temperatures.

Courtesy, thisischris.com

This is by no means an isolated incident. The Associated Press is reporting, “The gelatinous seaborne creatures are blamed for decimating fishing industries in the Bering and Black seas.”

The National Science Foundation’s website shows there are thirteen jelly fish “swarms” around the world.

The Mediterranean is one such location. This summer will mark the ninth in a row that jellyfish have swarmed there. The National Science Foundation, in its jellyfish report, says that the swarms are so pervasive, “In August 2008, The New York Times reported that in a period of mere hours, 300 beach-goers in Barcelona were treated for stings and 11 required hospital treatment.”

Closer to home, jellyfish still represent a serious problem. The East Coast has seen the population of comb jellies more than double near Narragansett Rode island. During peak season the creatures now dominate the coastline.

More information about the global invasion of this globules fish can be found at the National Science Foundation’s piece, Jellyfish Gone Wild.

Like this school of fish near Komdo, Indonesia, new robotic sensors will be released in mass to catalog ocean information.

Courtesy, Tom Weilenmann @ flickr

Earth may be known as the “blue planet,” but despite it’s prevalence on Earth’s surface relatively little is known about our world oceans. Blogger, Moises Velasquez-Manoff for the Christian Science Monitor wrote earlier this week that 71 percent of the planet, “remains maddeningly beyond humanity’s ability to easily measure.”

However, steps are being taken to further study the oceans. Most recently Scripps Institution of Oceanography, of the University of California, San Diego was awarded a grant by the National Science Foundation.

The grant will fund the development of robotic ocean monitoring sensors. The sensors, as explained in this video by Scripps scientist Jules Gaffe, will mimic fish behavior. Hundreds of small fish-sized autonomous underwater explorers will be released in an area. The small robots will then swarm areas of ocean like a school of fish. They will provide detailed information on how the water is moving, rising, falling, and swirling. This kind of information will help scientists understand how oil spills, sewage, and pollution moves around in the ocean.

More research is already underway to make oceanic conditions more measurable. The National Science Foundation’s Ocean Observatories Initiative or OOI is already under construction. The initiative includes hundreds of millions of dollars to build a network of  “science-driven sensor systems to measure the physical, chemical, geological and biological variables in the ocean and seafloor.” Sensors will be placed all over the worlds oceans. The information they provide will help forecast changes in biodiversity, coastal ecosystems and climate.

The map above by the National Science Foundation shows locations of its Ocean Observatories Initiative. The initiative will help forecast things like climate change.

Courtesy, National Science Foundation

Ocean monitoring has also become and international undertaking. The information collected by the National Science Foundation’s OOI will be fed into a global information network. The network, Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) has the support of 80 governments around the world. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is reporting that GEOSS will turn “Earth into a new frontier, driving a deeper understanding of Earth’s complex systems in a way that will greatly improve our predictive capabilities and bring vital societal benefits to people around the globe.”

Goals of the international undertaking are rather lofty. According to NOAA goals of the program include:

• Potentially cut U.S. energy costs by about $1 billion annually.
• Gather biodiversity data to help scientists detect emerging diseases.
• Catalog drought and stream flow data to help manage drinking water.
• Monitor air quality effects in near real-time.
• Give farmers immediate access to key forecasts to maximize crop yields.

In the modern age of global pollutants, today’s ocean is more vulnerable than ever to human impact. As The Surf Check blog continues to investigate sources of environmental impact, information remains key. It’s in the interest of all Earth’s inhabitene that information on oceans be made available and accessible because the oceans play such a crucial role in all life on earth.

A septic tank is emptied. New septic systems will no longer be built in the city of Malibu, Calf. Homes with their own septic systems will be required to hook up to a sewer system by 2019.

Courtesy of Ian Haycox @ Flickr

Late Thursday night the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board agreed to ban septic systems in Malibu, Calf. The Los Angeles Times reports the decision came after an emotional 10  hour meeting. Surfer’s testimony was pitted against economic concerns from home owners and businesses. In the end environmental and public health concerns trumped the financial cost of connecting up to a sewer system.

The fight over septic systems in Malibu is as old as the city itself. In 1991 Malibu chose to incorporate. By doing so it avoided Los Angeles County’s mandate that Malibu’s residents move to a sewer system. At the time the fear was that a sewer system would allow for unchecked development that would change the character of the community.

The policy of allowing individual homes to construct their own septic tanks rather than a community sewer has led to environmental hazards. Other than the “Malibu Smell”, attributed to the numerous septics in the area, Malibu’s ocean and beaches have been affected by the runoff of human effluent.

Ending private septic systems is an important step in cleaning up the one of Southern California’s dirtiest stretches of ocean. And the ban has special significance to the surfing community in Malibu and surfers everywhere. Contact with raw sewage can have some serious health consequences. Surfers Against Sewage, a British organization, links sewage contamination to, “bacillary dysentery, pneumonia, botulism, hepatitis A, meningitis and septicaemia” outbreaks throughout the world.

According to Surfers Against Sewage human effluent that has not been fully treated using either ultra-violet disinfection or microfiltration can harbor serious pathogens if released into the ocean. Unfortunately these processes are only available to large scale sewer treatment plants, not private septics. Septic systems also use leach lines and are prone to leaks.

The Los Angeles Times reports surfers like Ken Seino have had serious health complications resulting from contact with raw sewage. At the meeting Seino opened his shirt to reveal a scar on his upper left-chest, where a pacemaker had been implanted. Seino said the pacemaker is a result of contracting viral myocarditis in the summer of 1997. He attributes the hart condition to raw sewage he paddled through while surfing at Surfrider Beach in Malibu.

“I smelled it, I tasted it, and it was ugly,” Seino, 53, said. “I regurgitated before I could paddle to the sand.”

“I will die before my time because of this infection,” Seino said at the Thursday night meeting.

A view of Surfrider beach from the Malibu hills above. Surfrider beach has been plagued by water quality issues stemming from sewage runoff.

Image Courtesy, svanes @ flickr

In the past Malibu beaches were most often effected by effluent runoff following heavy rains. The Los Angeles Times reports that, “After rainstorms, officials often post signs on Surfrider Beach urging swimmers and surfers to steer clear because of health dangers.” According to Heal the Bay, an environmental advocacy group, Malibu’s Surfrider beach earned an “F” in water quality during wet conditions. The daily grade assigned to Surfrider beach is available here.

A comprehensive report issued by Heal the Bay showed Malibu beaches regularly exceed maximum bacteria levels. Again, Malibu’s Surfrider beach is one of the most adversely affected. In the summer of 2009 it exceeded the Santa Monica Bay Beach Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (SMBBB TMDL) 62 days in a 129 day period. Making it the third worst offender in the Los Angles County area. Better only than Santa Monica Municipal Pier and Dockweiler State Beach. Both are considered “chronic exceeders” of generaly acceptable bacteria levels.

Since the early 1970′s vegetarian diets have been hailed as sustainable. This is partly due to Frances Moore Lappe’s book, Diet for a Small Planet. In which she argues that cattle and other livestock are essentially “reverse protein factories.” With the appearance of farmed seafood the argument reemerges with respect to ocean aquaculture.  Are fish farms reverse protein factories that destroy  environments and food chains?

Recent evidence suggests they may not be. A partnership of the Harvard School of Public Health, the Environmental Defense Fund, and The Monterey Bay Aquarium have released a “Super Green” list of healthy and environmentally conscious seafood.

The argument against meat and its status as a “reverse protein factory” is thus. When someone eats protein in the form of beef, they are eating a cow that already consumed many times that amount of protein in the form of plants. Meaning that a diet of plants is more environmentally efficient than a diet of meat.

For example, in the book Food Energy and Society by David and Marcia Pimentel, they contend that for a cow to provide a person with one calorie of beef, the cow must first consume twenty to forty times that amount of calories. Which makes sense when you consider all the grass a cow consumes in its lifetime to bring you a relatively small amount of beef.

These inefficiencies apply to all animals and not surprisingly carry on into the world of aquaculture. As a 2007 Time Magazine article reported, “It takes a lot of input, in the form of other, lesser fish — also known as “reduction” or “trash” fish — to produce the kind of fish we prefer to eat directly. To create 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of high-protein fishmeal, which is fed to farmed fish…it takes 4.5 kg (10 lbs.) of smaller pelagic, or open-ocean, fish.”

Malaysian farmers harvest Pomfrets for export. The fish are a major food source in Southeast Asia

Courtesy, jensen_chua @ flicker

As you would expect this has some negative consequences on ocean environments. Tuna farming for example requires that wild Tuna first be captured (no one has yet been able to grow Tuna from eggs) and then, “dine on live pelagic fish, such as anchovies, sardines and mackerel, but it takes about 20 kg (44 lbs.) of such feed to get 1 kg of tuna ready for a sushi bar near you.” according to Time Magazine. Which puts serous strain on ocean ecosystems.

However, omega acids and other health benefits of eating seafood may still be had while staying ‘green’.  Harvard School of Public Health, the Environmental Defense Fund and The Monterey Bay Aquarium have made two designations to seafood they found to be both healthy and sustainable. “Super Green” being the greenest and most healthy, and “Best Choices” being the next best. All seafoods that have been designated as such are listed below. More information on the criteria and selection is available at the Monetary Bay Aquarium’s website.

The Best in Healthy Sustainable Sea Cuisine “Super Green”

Albacore Tuna (troll- or pole-caught, from the U.S. or British Columbia)
Mussels (farmed)
Oysters (farmed)
Pacific Sardines (wild-caught)
Pink Shrimp (wild-caught, from Oregon)
Rainbow Trout (farmed)
Salmon (wild-caught, from Alaska)
Spot Prawns (wild-caught, from British Columbia)

Other Healthy “Best Choices”

Arctic Char (farmed)
Bay Scallops (farmed)
Crayfish (farmed, from the U.S.)
Dungeness Crab (wild-caught, from California, Oregon or Washington)
Longfin Squid (wild-caught, from the U.S. Atlantic)
Pacific Cod (longline-caught, from Alaska)

12%

decline in total fish tonnage harvested from the worlds oceans 1988 to 2003

1988 saw the all-time high of 85.5 million tons of fish caught. Since then the decline has been steady, and in 2003 75 million tons of fish were harvested.  Although there are more ships scouring the ocean for fish, it seems there are simply fewer fish to catch.

Source, Sea Around Us

33%

increase in dissolved carbon dioxide in seawater 1850 to 2005

In 1850 dissolved carbon dioxide in water was 398.1 micrograms per kilogram of seawater. In 2005 dissolved carbon dioxide reached 523.9 micrograms per kilogram. Dissolved carbon dioxide hasn’t increased this rapidly in 650,000 years of earth history.

Source, NOAA’s Pacific Environment Marine Laboratory

75%

decline in kelp forests off the coast of Southern California in the last fifty years.

Kelp forests are excellent habitats for fish. With the loss of habitat it’s likely the fish will disappear with the kelp.

Source, LA Times

90%

decline in the number of tuna, cod and other large cold-water fish in the last fifty years

Commercial fishing and human diets rely heavily on the abundance of large ocean fish. What will be do if they disappear completely?

Source, LA Times

100%

Increase in Hurricane intensity 1970 to 2005

We’ve already seen the potential strength of these new hurricanes in New Orleans; what areas areas are next?

Source, Environmental Defense Fund

400

total number of ocean dead zones as of 2008

The 400 ‘dead zones’ equate to about 95,000 square miles of ocean. That is roughly the size of the state of Michigan.

Source, SF Gate.com

650

number of Gray Whales that have washed up sick or dead on the west coast of the United States in the last seven years

Source, LA Times

1,700

diameter of the great pacific garbage patch

Global currents wash massive quantities of floating trash into the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Researcher’s ocean samples included bits of trash for 1,700 consecutive miles as they crossed the patch.

Source, Reuters UK

8,500

square miles of ocean ‘dead zone’ where the Mississippi river meets the Gulf of Mexico

A ‘dead zone’ is an area of ocean that experiences oxygen depletion. The low oxygen levels are due to massive algae blooms in the area. When the algae die and begin to decompose they starve the area of oxygen. The algae live off the fertilizers and pollution the Mississippi river dumps in the ocean. Mobile aquatic species leave the area, but those that can’t leave generally die.

Source, World Resources Institute

400,000

number of square miles of arctic ice that has melted in the last 30 years

The melt affects global ocean levels and arctic animal habitats.

Source, Environmental Defense Fund

A wartime ‘pill box’ in Suffolk, UK succumbs to coastal erosion. The WWII bunker held back the Third Reich, but it was no match for coastal erosion.

Photo Courtesy, Barry Hughes

Last week scientists from around the world descended on South Carolina’s, Myrtle Beach to discuss coastal erosion. Scientific American reports the impetus of the event was a study conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium. In the study researchers researchers looked at whether or not South Carolina should begin re-sanding portions of its receding beaches. The results of the study were presented to the scientists as part of the International Geological Program Annual Conference.

The study showed that South Carolina’s coastline is receding at a rate of up to thirty centimeters  (11.8 inches) per year. While losing a foot of coastline into the ocean doesn’t seem overly concerning; the long term effects are staggering. On average South Carolina can expect to lose almost one hundred feet of coastline over the next century.

This is certainly not an isolated phenomenon. Coastlines all over the world recede each year.  Oceanography in the 21st Century, an online text book reports that, “Average erosion rates are 6 feet per year along the Gulf [of Mexico] and 2 to 3 feet per year along the Atlantic.”

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “17 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area [the coast] is home to more than half of the nation’s population.”  Meaning receding coastlines have the potential to affect a huge number of Americans. And, Scientific American sites the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s estimate “that between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades.”

Yet, coastal erosion remains invisible to most beach goers. This may be a result of how beach erosion occurs. Research indicates that it is almost never the case that a beach will consistently loses a foot or two of soil each year. Rather a portion of coastline will remain relatively stable for forty or fifty years. Then all the ‘deferred’ erosion will take place over a short period of time.

Oceanography in the 21st Century says, “Beach erosion is episodic. Most erosion occurs over a short period, sometimes in hours during a hurricane such as Katrina, sometimes during a season as in California during an El Niño event [as is this winter].”

Photos before and after Hurricane Katrina illustrate rapid coastal erosion in Louisiana.

Photo Courtesy, USGS

This has special significance here, the home of The Surf Check blog, in San Luis Obispo, Calf. Nearby homes worth millions of dollars are built atop bluffs overlooking Shell Beach. The owners build these beautiful homes with the expectation that the home and the land will be there forever. But, given the episodic nature of erosion, based on averages how long can they really expect that bluff to be there? How permanent are their homes and investments with the onset of El Niño conditions this winter?