How Urban Land Expansion Will Impact Biodiversity & Ecosystems

Oct 15: A new assessment by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).Global indicates that "urbanization will have significant implications for biodiversity and ecosystems if current trends continue, with knock-on effects for human health and development." The assessment -- Cities and Biodiversity Outlook -- which draws on contributions from more than 123 scientists worldwide, states that over 60 percent of the land projected to become urban by 2030 has yet to be built. This presents a major opportunity to greatly improve global sustainability by promoting low-carbon, resource-efficient urban development that can reduce adverse effects on biodiversity and improve quality of life, it says. 

 

    The report is the world's first global analysis of how projected patterns of urban land expansion will impact biodiversity and crucial ecosystems. The world's total urban area is expected to triple between 2000 and 2030, with urban populations set to double to around 4.9 billion in the same period. This urban expansion will draw heavily on water and other natural resources and will consume prime agricultural land.

 

    Braulio Dias, Executive Secretary of the CBD said, "The way our cities are designed, the way people live in them and the policy decisions of local authorities will define, to a large extent, future global sustainability. The innovation lies not so much in developing new infrastructural technologies and approaches but to work with what we already have. The results often require fewer economic resources and are more sustainable."

 

    The report states that urban expansion is occurring fast in areas close to biodiversity 'hotspots' and coastal zones. In rapidly urbanizing regions, such as large and mid-size settlements in sub-Saharan Africa, India and China, resources to implement sustainable urban planning are often lacking. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said, "More than half the global population already resides in cities. This number is projected to increase, with 60 percent of the population living in urban areas by 2030. This report makes a strong argument for greater attention to be paid by urban planners and managers to the nature-based assets within city boundaries. Sustainable urban development that supports valuable ecosystems presents a major opportunity for improving lives and livelihoods, and accelerating the transition to an inclusive green economy."

 

    Cities are also increasingly recognized for their role in supporting plant and animal species and diverse ecosystems. For example, over 50 percent of Belgium's floral species can be found in Brussels, while 65 percent of Poland's bird species occur in Warsaw. Urban green spaces perform important ecosystem services, such as filtering dust, absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and improving air quality. Data from the United Kingdom shows that a 10 percent increase in tree canopy cover in cities may result in a 3-4°C decrease in ambient temperature, thus reducing energy used in air conditioning.

 

    Urban biodiversity also delivers important health benefits. Studies have shown that proximity to trees can reduce the prevalence of childhood asthma and allergies. Sustainable urban planning, which addresses biodiversity issues along with other priorities such as poverty alleviation, employment, and housing, can bring positive effects for health and the environment. Professor Thomas Elmqvist of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Scientific Editor of the report said, "Cities need to learn how to better protect and enhance biodiversity, because rich biodiversity can exist in cities and is extremely critical to people's health and well-being."

 

    The report highlights a wide range of successful initiatives by cities, local authorities and sub-national governments in both developed and developing countries. In Bogotá, Colombia, measures such as closing roads on weekends, improving the bus transit system and creating bicycle paths resulted in increased physical activity among residents, and a reduction in greenhouse gases emissions. 

 

    The report also provides detailed analyses of regional urbanization trends and their impact on biodiversity and ecosystems. It also demonstrates how urban areas can play a central role in achieving 20 key biodiversity goals (known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets) which were agreed upon in 2010 by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. For example, the restoration or 'greening' of ex-industrial sites or brownfield land by city authorities can support efforts to achieve Aichi Target 15, whereby 15 percent of degraded ecosystems are restored by 2020. Cities can also help prevent extinction of known species (Aichi Target 12) through research and investment by zoos, aquaria and museums, many of which are managed by city authorities.

 

    The Cities and Biodiversity Outlook was produced by the Secretariat of the CBD in partnership with the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity operates under the UNEP.

 

    Access a release from UNEP with additional information and links to related items (click here). Access the report website for links to the complete report, a launch video and extensive related information and resources (click here). [#Land, #Sustain]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

New Oil Slick Linked To BP Deepwater Horizon 2010 Spill

Oct 10: The Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in New Orleans issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to BP and Transocean. Coast Guard Capt. Duke Walker issued the NOFI following sample results from an oil sheen located in the vicinity of where the Deepwater Horizon drill rig exploded and sank more than two years ago. The sheen was first reported to the National Response Center September 16 by BP based on satellite images from the 9th and 14th overpasses in the Mississippi Canyon, block 252, approximately 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana. The Coast Guard said the sheen is not feasible to recover and does not pose a risk to the shoreline.

    The Coast Guard, in concert with BP and NOAA, has conducted regular assessments of the sheen by aircraft and boat since its discovery. The observed sheen size has varied over time depending upon the conditions present. Samples of the sheen were taken by Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City Sept. 26 and sent to the Coast Guard Marine Safety Lab in New London, Conn. The Marine Safety Laboratory results indicate the sheen correlates to oil that originated from BP's Macondo Well. The exact source of the sheen is uncertain at this time but could be residual oil associated with wreckage and/or debris left on the seabed from the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010.

    The NOFI effectively informs BP and Transocean that the Coast Guard matched the sheen samples to the Deepwater Horizon spill or sunken drilling debris and that either party or both may be held accountable for any cost associated with further assessments or operations related to this sheen. 

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee, who was the leading investigative force into the BP disaster in 2010, called for a full undersea survey of the Macondo site carried live on the internet so independent scientists can examine the activities as they happen. He said, "One can only hope that the nightmare well has not come back to haunt the people of the Gulf. The federal government should order BP to immediately deploy undersea rovers to examine the well site, the wreckage of the sunken rig, the drill pipe, and the surrounding area. BP must also bring back the Spillcam, so the world can see in real time what is going on at the bottom of the Gulf. There is no room for error, and no room for obfuscation, when it comes to this matter."

 

    During the 2010 BP oil spill, Rep. Markey successfully called for the release of a live internet feed of the undersea rovers. Spillcam, which was first hosted on Rep. Markey's committee website, and footage released by BP at his request, aided scientists in determining the size and rate of the spill. Rep. Markey indicated that the return of Macondo oil also raises the issue of BP's outstanding fines and damage assessments from the 2010 spill. Additional oil and residual effects continuing from the spill years later should be considered in the final judgment, including provisions for additional fines and damages if recurring seeps and leaks are determined to be possible.

 

    Rep. Markey said, "BP must do everything in its power to ensure this well does not rupture or leak, and they should be held responsible if it does. BP still has billions to pay to the people of the Gulf and the U.S. government, but the Gulf region also deserves the peace of mind that this well is dead once and for all."

 

    National environmental organizations including Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation issued a joint statement saying:

"BP's continued attempts to dodge responsibility for the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history must not continue. Despite a costly advertising campaign claiming that the gulf has bounced back from the 2010 oil disaster, the gulf is still reeling, both environmentally and economically. We may not know the full impact of the spill for years to come, but we do know that BP must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, stop stalling, pay up and make the gulf whole.

"This latest slick shows us once again that the oil is still taking a toll on the gulf. The sooner full payment happens, the sooner environmental and economic restoration can begin for this region. We owe it to the Gulf of Mexico -- one of our national treasures -- to make sure BP does right for the people, wildlife and habitat of this region.

"Drilling experts are claiming it's unlikely that BP's Macondo well is leaking again and the Coast Guard feels the residual oil 'does not pose a risk to the shoreline,' but the slick is nonetheless a cause for concern for the wildlife and ecosystem of the gulf -- especially considering recent media reports suggesting BP has proposed a settlement offer that is significantly less than what it would face at trial.

"Alarmingly, BP has purportedly offered a sum less than $20 billion. An amount so low would be inadequate to repair the gulf and would allow the oil giant -- which netted $25.7 billion in 2011 -- to escape paying what is required by law, what it can afford and what is fair in a case with such egregious environmental damage."

"BP must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. It's time for BP to stop stalling, pay up and make the gulf whole."

    Access the release from the Coast Guard (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey and link to related information (click here). Access the release and statement from the environmental groups (click here). [#Energy/OilSpill]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

CWA Effluent Guidelines Could Benefit From Better Information

Oct 10: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit from More Information on Treatment Technologies (GAO-12-845, Sep 10, 2012). The report was requested by Representative Timothy Bishop (D-NY), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

 

    In background information GAO indicates that under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA has made significant progress in reducing wastewater pollution from industrial facilities. EPA currently regulates 58 industrial categories, such as petroleum refining, fertilizer manufacturing, and coal mining, with technology-based regulations called effluent guidelines. Such guidelines are applied in permits to limit the pollutants that facilities may discharge. The Clean Water Act also calls for EPA to revise the guidelines when appropriate. EPA has done so, for example, to reflect advances in treatment technology or changes in industries.

    GAO was asked to examine: (1) the process EPA follows to screen and review industrial categories potentially needing new or revised guidelines and the results of that process from 2003 through 2010; (2) limitations to this process, if any, that could hinder EPA's effectiveness in advancing the goals of the Clean Water Act; and (3) EPA's actions to address any such limitations. GAO analyzed the results of EPA's screening and review process from 2003 through 2010, surveyed state officials, and interviewed EPA officials and experts to obtain their views on EPA's process and its results.

    U.S. EPA uses a two-phase process to identify industrial categories potentially needing new or revised effluent guidelines to help reduce their pollutant discharges. EPA's 2002 draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations was the foundation for EPA's process. In the first, or "screening," phase, EPA uses data from two EPA databases to rank industrial categories according to the total toxicity of their wastewater. Using this ranking, public comments, and other considerations, EPA has identified relatively few industrial categories posing the highest hazard for the next, or "further review," phase. In this further review phase, EPA evaluates the categories to identify those that are appropriate for new or revised guidelines because treatment technologies are available to reduce pollutant discharges. Since 2003, EPA has regularly screened the 58 categories for which it has issued effluent guidelines, as well as some potential new industrial categories, and it has identified 12 categories for its further review phase. Of these 12 categories, EPA selected 3 for updated or new effluent guidelines. EPA chose not to set new guidelines for the others.

    GAO indicates that limitations in EPA's screening phase may have led it to overlook some industrial categories that warrant further review for new or revised effluent guidelines. Specifically, EPA has relied on limited hazard data that may have affected its ranking of industrial categories. Further, during its screening phase, EPA has not considered the availability of advanced treatment technologies for most industrial categories. Although its 2002 draft strategy recognized the importance of technology data, EPA has stated that such data were too difficult to obtain during the screening phase and, instead, considers them for the few categories that reach further review. Officials responsible for state water quality programs and experts on industrial discharges, however, identified categories they believe EPA should examine for new or updated guidelines to reflect changes in their industrial processes and treatment technology capabilities. According to some experts, consideration of treatment technologies is especially important for older effluent guidelines because changes are more likely to have occurred in either the industrial categories or the treatment technologies, making it possible that new, more advanced treatment technologies are available.

    Recognizing the limitations of its hazard data and overall screening approach, EPA has begun revising its process but has not assessed other possible sources of information it could use to improve the screening phase. In 2012, EPA supplemented the hazard data used in screening with four new data sources. EPA is also developing a regulation that, through electronic reporting, will increase the completeness and accuracy of its hazard data. In 2011, EPA also began to obtain recent treatment technology literature. According to EPA, the agency will expand on this work in 2013. Nonetheless, EPA has not thoroughly examined other usable sources of information on treatment technology, nor has it reassessed the role such information should take in its screening process. Without a more thorough and integrated screening approach that both uses improved hazard data and considers information on treatment technology, EPA cannot be certain that the effluent guidelines program reflects advances in the treatment technologies used to reduce pollutants in wastewater.

    GAO has made recommendations which they say would improve the effectiveness of EPA's effluent guidelines program by expanding its screening phase to better assess hazards and advances in treatment technology. EPA agreed with two recommendations in principle and said it is making progress on them, but said that one is not workable given current agency resources. However, GAO said it believes improvements can be made.

    Access the complete 72-page report (click here). [#Water]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House Dems React To GAO Reports On Fracking Issues

Oct 9: House Democrats that were part of the bicameral requesters of two Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on oil and gas development of shale resources and the utilization of hydraulic fracturing technology, issued a release reacting to the reports [See WIMS 10/9/12]. Members included: Representatives Edward Markey (D-MA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Diana DeGette (D-CO). They said the reports come at a time of increased domestic oil and gas production and environmental concerns related to hydraulic fracturing.
 
    Rep. Markey, Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee said, "We shouldn't let chemicals and pollutants seep into the environment due to loopholes in the laws governing oil and gas drilling. Regulators have operated with one hand tied behind their back for too long when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Federal officials are limited in their ability to even collect the information necessary for conducting oversight activities. Congress should enact changes to the law that will strengthen oversight of hydraulic fracturing operations, including the disposal of fracturing fluids.  In turn, this will strengthen public confidence in this new source of American energy that we can harness to meet our nation's future energy needs."

    Rep. Waxman, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, "EPA and the states share responsibility for ensuring that oil and gas development doesn't irreparably harm the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. To do its job and enforce the law, EPA needs timely and unfettered access to information about oil and gas operations, the chemicals they are using, and their releases to air, land, and water."

    Rep. DeGette, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations said, "Over and over again, GAO highlights that shale oil and gas development can pose inherent environmental and public health risks. Exemptions and limitations make it difficult to determine the extent of those risks. That's why I introduced the FRAC Act, which allows for chemical disclosure and federal oversight of hydraulic fracturing to ensure that the economic benefits of oil and gas production do not come at the expense of the health and safety of our families and communities."
 
    The new GAO reports describe the main environmental risks associated with unconventional shale resource development, including risks to air quality, land resources, wildlife and surface water and groundwater quality. While many assume that these risks can be mitigated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using its authority under national environmental laws, the GAO also clearly identifies key exemptions for or limitations in the applicability of these laws to oil and gas development activities that prevent EPA from taking any action. For example GAO cited:

• Hydraulic fracturing with fluids other than diesel is exempted from permit requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Release of hazardous air pollutants from oil and gas wells and their associated equipment can not be aggregated and regulated as a major source of air pollution under the Clean Air Act, as typically is done with other industrial stationary sources.
• Typically, EPA requires permits for stormwater discharges at construction sites, which prevents sediment from entering nearby streams. These permits are not required for construction activities on oil and gas well sites.
• The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act established the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) -- but oil and gas operators are not required to report chemical releases under TRI.
• EPA cannot treat oil and gas production wastes as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    The Members indicated that this past summer, the Department of Interior for the first time in more than thirty years proposed regulations for hydraulic fracturing on federal lands [See WIMS 5/4/12]. While acknowledged as an important step in establishing basic safety protections for public health and the environment, Rep. Markey submitted a critique of the rules suggesting several areas for improvement. Earlier this year, Rep. Markey also released a report detailing oil and gas drilling violations occurring on federal lands. The report found that Department of Interior inspectors were severely limited in their enforcement actions and restricted in the amount of fines levied against violating companies because of outdated and lenient laws and regulations. In fact, all fines issued to more than 300 companies in 17 states over more than a decade were less than $275,000.
 
    In 2011 an investigation released by Reps. Waxman, Markey, and DeGette found that the fourteen leading oil and gas companies used more than 32 million gallons of unpermitted diesel fuel as a component of their hydraulic fracturing fluid, a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing fluid is the only component that triggers the need for a permit under this law.

    Access a release from the Members and link to the related studies and investigations (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Energy/OilGas, #Energy/Shale]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

GAO Reports On Unconventional Oil & Gas & Shale Development

Oct 5: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a major 241-page report entitled, Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements (GAO-12-874, Sep 5, 2012). The report was requested by a number of Democratic environmental leaders in the House and Senate including: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works; and Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA); and others.

    In background information, GAO indicates that technological improvements have allowed the extraction of oil and natural gas from onshore unconventional reservoirs such as shale, tight sandstone, and coalbed methane formations. Specifically, advances in horizontal drilling techniques combined with hydraulic fracturing (pumping water, sand, and chemicals into wells to fracture underground rock formations and allow oil or gas to flow) have increased domestic development of oil and natural gas from these unconventional reservoirs. The increase in such development has raised concerns about potential environmental and public health effects and whether existing federal and state environmental and public health requirements are adequate.

    GAO was asked to review environmental and public health requirements for unconventional oil and gas development and: (1) describe Federal requirements; (2) describe state requirements; (3) describe additional requirements that apply on Federal lands; and (4) identify challenges, if any, that Federal and state agencies reported facing in regulating oil and gas development from unconventional reservoirs. GAO identified and analyzed Federal laws, state laws in six selected states (Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming), and interviewed Federal and state officials and representatives from industry, environmental, and public health organizations.

    GAO found that as with conventional oil and gas development, requirements from eight Federal environmental and public health laws apply to unconventional oil and gas development. For example, the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharges of pollutants into surface waters. Among other things, CWA requires oil and gas well site operators to obtain permits for discharges of produced water -- which includes fluids used for hydraulic fracturing, as well as water that occurs naturally in oil- or gas-bearing formations -- to surface waters. In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the management and disposal of hazardous wastes, among other things. However, key exemptions or limitations in regulatory coverage affect the applicability of six of these environmental and public health laws. For example, CWA also generally regulates stormwater discharges by requiring that facilities associated with industrial and construction activities get permits, but the law and its regulations largely exempt oil and gas well sites. In addition, oil and gas exploration and production wastes are exempt from RCRA hazardous waste requirements based on a regulatory determination made by U.S. EPA in 1988. EPA generally retains its authorities under Federal environmental and public health laws to respond to environmental contamination.

    All six states in GAO's review implement additional requirements governing activities associated with oil and gas development and have updated some aspects of their requirements in recent years. For example, all six states have requirements related to how wells are to be drilled and how casing -- steel pipe within the well -- is to be installed and cemented in place, though the specifics of their requirements vary. The states also have requirements related to well site selection and preparation, which may include baseline testing of water wells before drilling or stormwater management.

    Oil and gas development on Federal lands must comply with applicable Federal environmental and state laws, as well as additional requirements. These requirements are the same for conventional and unconventional oil and gas development. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees oil and gas development on approximately 700 million subsurface acres. BLM regulations for leases and permits govern similar types of activities as state requirements, such as requirements for how operators drill the well and install casing. BLM recently proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing of wells on public lands.

    Federal and state agencies reported several challenges in regulating oil and gas development from unconventional reservoirs. EPA officials reported that conducting inspection and enforcement activities and having limited legal authorities are challenges. For example, conducting inspection and enforcement activities is challenging due to limited information, such as data on groundwater quality prior to drilling. EPA officials also said that the exclusion of exploration and production waste from hazardous waste regulations under RCRA significantly limits EPA's role in regulating these wastes. In addition, BLM and state officials reported that hiring and retaining staff and educating the public are challenges. For example, officials from several states and BLM said that retaining employees is difficult because qualified staff are frequently offered more money for private sector positions within the oil and gas industry. GAO did not make recommendations. In commenting on the report, agencies provided information on recent regulatory activities and technical comments.

    GAO release a second, related 70-page report entitled, Oil and Gas Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks (GAO-12-732, Sep 5, 2012). The report was requested by the same Democratic leaders.

    In background for the second report, GAO indicates that new applications of horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing--in which water, sand, and chemical additives are injected under high pressure to create and maintain fractures in underground formations--allow oil and natural gas from shale formations (known as "shale oil" and "shale gas") to be developed. As exploration and development of shale oil and gas have increased--including in areas of the country without a history of oil and natural gas development--questions have been raised about the estimates of the size of these resources, as well as the processes used to extract them.

    GAO was asked to determine what is known about the: (1) size of shale oil and gas resources and the amount produced from 2007 through 2011; and (2) environmental and public health risks associated with the development of shale oil and gas. GAO reviewed estimates and data from Federal and nongovernmental organizations on the size and production of shale oil and gas resources. GAO also interviewed Federal and state regulatory officials, representatives from industry and environmental organizations, oil and gas operators, and researchers from academic institutions.

    GAO found that estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Potential Gas Committee -- three organizations that estimate the size of these resources -- have increased over the last 5 years, which could mean an increase in the nation's energy portfolio. For example, in 2012, EIA estimated that the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the United States was 482 trillion cubic feet--an increase of 280 percent from EIA's 2008 estimate. However, according to EIA and USGS officials, estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States are highly dependent on the data, methodologies, model structures, and assumptions used to develop them. In addition, less is known about the amount of technically recoverable shale oil than shale gas, in part because large-scale production of shale oil has been under way for only the past few years. Estimates are based on data available at a given point in time and will change as additional information becomes available. In addition, domestic shale oil and gas production has experienced substantial growth; shale oil production increased more than fivefold from 2007 to 2011, and shale gas production increased more than fourfold from 2007 to 2011.

Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects. For example, according to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, shale oil and gas development poses risks to air quality, generally as the result of: (1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundments -- temporary storage areas. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals. For example, tanks storing toxic chemicals or hoses and pipes used to convey wastes to the tanks could leak, or impoundments containing wastes could overflow as a result of extensive rainfall.

    According to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's 2011 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, spilled, leaked, or released chemicals or wastes could flow to a surface water body or infiltrate the ground, reaching and contaminating subsurface soils and aquifers. In addition, shale oil and gas development poses a risk to land resources and wildlife habitat as a result of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to develop oil and gas; using toxic chemicals; and injecting fluids underground. However, the extent of these risks is unknown. Further, the extent and severity of environmental and public health risks identified in the studies and publications GAO reviewed may vary significantly across shale basins and also within basins because of location- and process-specific factors, including the location and rate of development; geological characteristics, such as permeability, thickness, and porosity of the formations; climatic conditions; business practices; and regulatory and enforcement activities.

    Access the complete Unconventional Oil & Gas report (click here). Access the second report on Shale Resources (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Energy/OilGas, #Energy/Shale]

NAS Says Army Corps' Aging Water Infrastructure Is Unsustainable

Oct 4: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces an "unsustainable situation" in maintaining its national water projects at acceptable levels of performance, says a new report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council. The report -- Corps of Engineers Water Resources Infrastructure: Deterioration, Investment, or Divestment? -- suggests expanding revenues and strengthening partnerships among the private and public sectors as options to manage the Corps' aging water infrastructure, which includes levees and dams. 

 

    David Dzombak, chair of the committee that wrote the report and professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Steinbrenner Institute of Environmental Education and Research at Carnegie Mellon University said, "The country's water resources infrastructure is largely built-out, and there are limited sites to construct new projects. Today, the Corps focuses mainly on sustaining its existing structures, some of which are in states of significant deterioration and disrepair.  Funding for maintenance and rehabilitation of Corps water resources infrastructure -- which includes navigation locks and dams, flood management levees and dams, and other facilities -- has been inadequate for decades. We now have a scenario where the water infrastructure is wearing out faster than it is being replaced or rehabilitated. Some components could be decommissioned or divested, but the Corps does not have the authority to do this."

 

    NAS indicates that the Corps is authorized to carry out projects in several mission areas that include navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation. Currently its extensive infrastructure consists of approximately 700 dams, 14,000 miles of Federal levees, and 12,000 miles of river navigation channel and control structures. Because of its many different authorities and programs, the Corps' successes in addressing maintenance and rehabilitation issues in one mission area often do not transfer easily to other mission areas.

 

    The report indicates that the Corps' division and district offices set some priorities for maintenance and rehabilitation of existing projects within annual budgets. However, there is no defined distribution of responsibility among Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Corps for national-level prioritization of investments in maintenance and rehabilitation for existing water infrastructure. For major rehabilitation projects, decisions about funding are the responsibility of Congress and OMB.

 

    NAS said a more systematic approach toward water infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation will require breaking with some management traditions and practices. For example, for Congress and OMB to place higher priority on maintenance issues, some reorientation away from a current strong focus on new projects via periodic Water Resources Development Acts is needed.  In addition, more specific direction from the executive branch and Congress regarding priorities for maintenance investments will be crucial to sustaining the Corps' high-priority and most valuable infrastructure, the committee emphasized.  Decommissioning or divesting some components should also be considered.

                           

    The committee said that partnerships with states, communities, and the private sector could yield new resources and more efficient methods, especially in hydropower generation, flood risk management, and port and harbor maintenance. Based on other hydropower systems such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the committee estimated that Corps hydropower revenues could be increased by rehabilitating and upgrading hydropower projects to improve efficiency of turbine and related power generation and distribution systems. With regard to flood risk management, reducing federal resources available to construct traditional, structural projects would present opportunities to implement nonstructural flood control options, such as zoning and building codes, that often are efficient, cost less, and provide greater environmental benefits. They also offer a chance for the Corps to extend its partnerships with local communities in providing technical advice and other types of support. 

 

    Maintaining the inland navigation system presents especially formidable challenges and choices for the Corps. Federal resources for construction and rehabilitation have declined steadily, and proposals to generate additional revenue by charging lockage fees to system users have been resisted historically. Parts of the system could be decommissioned, but that must be decided by Congress. The committee said, "Keeping the status quo of steady deterioration would entail significant disruptions in service." The report calls for an independent investigation of the opportunities for additional partnerships for operations and maintenance of Corps water infrastructure. Examples of such partnerships include those developed with private entities by state and local governments for port operation. Given the complexities of each Corps mission area, opportunities for new arrangements and greater efficiencies need to be investigated separately and carefully for each mission area.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, executive summary and report in brief (click here). [#Water]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Presidential Debate Hits Lightly On Energy, Oil, Coal & Renewables

Oct 3: The first Presidential debate in Denver touched lightly on energy issues including comments on oil development, renewables and coal. However, there were no specific questions from the moderator related to energy and environment issues. Climate change or global warming were not discussed by either President Obama or Governor Romney. The word "environment" was only mentioned once but it did not relate to the natural environment. The following is a summary of the energy related comments covered in the 90 minute debate.

 

    In opening remarks President Obama said, "I think we've got to invest in education and training. I think it's important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America. . ." In his opening remarks, Governor Mitt Romney said, "My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs. . ."

 

    At around 20 minutes into the debate, President Obama expanded on his energy comment saying, "On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we've got to boost American energy production, and oil and natural gas production are higher than they've been in years. But I also believe that we've got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments. . ."

 

    And, Governor Romney expanded on his comment saying, "Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I'm president, I'll double them, and also get the -- the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada. And, by the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs. . .

 

    President Obama commented later that one of the reasons for returning to the Clinton era tax rate for incomes over $250,000 was to make "investments that are necessary in education or in energy."

 

    The President discussed subsidies for oil companies saying, "The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don't get. Now, does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money, when they're making money every time you go to the pump? Why wouldn't we want to eliminate that?"

 

    Governor Romney responded on tax breaks and oil saying, ". . .the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth. But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent. But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this -- this is not -- this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure. . ."

 

    Governor Romney commented again on the President's investment in green energy saying, "But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into -- into green jobs. And I -- look, I'm all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have -- that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion. . ."

 

    Access the complete transcript of the debate posted on the CNN website with commenting opportunities (click here). Access the video of the debate (click here). [#Energy]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Groups Call For End To Keystone Center Pebble Mine Involvement

Oct 3: National and Alaska conservation organizations called on the Keystone Center to end its work on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska [See WIMS 5/21/12], which they said faces intense opposition from local residents, Alaska natives and commercial fishermen because the mine could ruin pristine land, fisheries and the livelihood of thousands of Alaskans. The Alaska Wilderness League, Audubon, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society, Earthjustice, and World Wildlife Fund sent a letter to Keystone CEO Gary Grappo saying that Keystone's work with the Pebble Partnership isn't necessary or productive and "has the potential for misuse by the mine proponents that are funding it."

 

    The Colorado-based Keystone Center has been hired by the Pebble Partnership, a consortium seeking to develop the Pebble Mine, to set up a "dialogue" process to evaluate the mine project separate from one undertaken by the U.S. EPA. Nine Federally recognized tribes, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, the Bristol Bay Native Association, commercial fishing and sportsmen groups, and conservation groups have asked the EPA to protect Bristol Bay and veto Pebble Mine. Those groups also oppose the Keystone dialogue.

 

    In support of the local opposition, the conservation groups wrote to Grappo: "We believe the dialogue is the wrong approach given the project's unacceptable location and unavoidable risks. We value good science, as you do, to inform a dispute, resolve uncertainties, and, where possible, eliminate risks through project design changes, operational conditions, or other mitigation. In this instance, however, no amount of scientific analysis or mitigation can alter the fundamental problem that this is an inherently dangerous project in the wrong place.

 

    "And we note the significant local opposition both to large-scale mining in the region and to Keystone's engagement in a dispute over a project that threatens to devastate this unique and irreplaceable watershed, contaminate their communities, and destroy their livelihood. We appreciate the gravity and the potential difficulty of the request we are making, but we nonetheless urge Keystone to withdraw its engagement from the Pebble Project."

 

    Pebble Mine is a giant gold and copper mine proposed at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed. The Bristol Bay watershed feeds the greatest wild salmon fishery in the world, supporting valuable (around $500 million annually) fish- and tourism-related activity, indigenous people, and a vast array of wildlife. Environmental groups have said that the proposed Pebble Mine, one of the largest mines in the world with a footprint that would cover 28 square miles of land, would siphon as much as 35 billion gallons of fresh water out of the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska every year, eliminating critical salmon habitat, and would likely facilitate the development of a much larger mining district, further endangering the world's largest wild sockeye salmon fishery.

 

    In their letter, the environmental groups commended the EPA for developing an ecological risk assessment of possible large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed. In May 2012, the EPA issued draft findings and concluded that "mining of this scale would case the loss of spawning and rearing habitat for multiple species of anadromous and resident fish." In its evaluation, the EPA provided substantial opportunity for experts and citizens to offer their views. Multiple public hearings in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest solicited testimony and comments from state and local governments, Native corporations, the mining industry, commercial fishermen, recreation and tourism businesses and residents. By overwhelming numbers public comments supported the EPA's process.

 

    In November 2007, The Keystone Center was approached by the UK- and U.S.-based consulting firm Sustainable Finance to determine whether Keystone was interested in and capable of undertaking an independent stakeholder assessment and dialogue feasibility study focused on the potential development of the Pebble Mine in southwest Alaska. Between February and May 2008, a Keystone Center team conducted interviews and conversations with approximately 90 individuals in Anchorage, the Bristol Bay watershed, and the Kenai Peninsula.

 

    The Keystone Center complete a study, Stakeholder Assessment and Dialogue Feasibility Study for the Proposed Pebble Project, in 2008 and 2009. A dialogue process has been established. Keystone indicates, "The primary goal of this Keystone Dialogue is to better inform decisions about the Bristol Bay mining project by integrating independent science with a public dialogue. The purpose of the Keystone Dialogue process is not to influence the decision about a mine in the Bristol Bay watershed or to replace any decision-making authority or administrative or regulatory procedure. Rather, our purpose is to assess the credibility and sufficiency of Pebble's science through an independent scientific review,  and then to make the relevant information resulting from this process available to state and federal agencies, environmental organizations, community and tribal organizations, the media and the mining company for use in considering a mine in the Bristol Bay watershed."

 

    Keystone indicates that the purpose of the dialogue process is to help stakeholders make better informed decisions about the critical choices before them. To that end, the Keystone Center is facilitating a dialogue process that includes the following framework:

• An independent Science Advisory Committee (SAC) to help guide the facilitated dialogue.
• Independent Science Panels (ISPs) to help stakeholders assess the credibility and sufficiency of baseline environmental and socioeconomic studies and understand the meaning of the studies in the context of a proposed mine. Panelists will engage with each other and with stakeholders in publicly held panels focused on the following topics: Responsible large-scale mining – principles, practices, criteria and standards (December, 2010); Geology and geochemistry / hydrology and water quality; Fish, wildlife, and habitat / Socioeconomic and cultural dimensions; and Evaluating choices – a facilitated panel discussion designed to help stakeholders examine a mine plan and its potential influence on the region's ecological, social, and economic base.
• Possible follow-up actions to address baseline scientific questions that may require further study.

    Access a release from the organizations and link to the complete letter (click here). Access the Bristol Bay assessment website for complete information and commenting instructions (click here). Access more information from the Wild Salmon Center on the Pebble Mine proposal (click here). Access more information on the Pebble Mine from Northern Dynasty (click here). Access a 4-page fact sheet from Northern Dynasty (click here). Access the Pebble Partnership website for more information including a Pebble Environmental Baseline Document (click here). Access the Keystone Center website for the Pebble Mine project for background and links to more information (click here). [#Land, #Wildlife, #Water]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Coal Plant Retirements Based More On Market Than Regulations

Oct 1: The Brattle Group, that provides consulting services and expert testimony in economics and finance to corporations, law firms, and public agencies worldwide, released a report -- Potential Coal Plant Retirements: 2012 Update -- that examines the impact of emerging U.S. EPA air quality regulations on coal-fired power plants. The new study, an update to an analysis conducted in 2010, finds that 59,000 to 77,000 MW of coal plant capacity are likely to retire over the next five years, which is approximately 25,000 MW more than previously estimated.

 

    The Brattle Group indicates that since December 2010 when the prior estimates of potential coal plant retirements were released, both natural gas prices and the projected demand for power have decreased, and environmental rules have been finalized with less restrictive compliance requirements and deadlines than previously foreseen. These shifts in market and regulatory conditions have resulted in an acceleration in announced coal plant retirements. As of July 2012, about 30,000 MW of coal plants (roughly 10% of total U.S. coal capacity) had announced plans to retire by 2016.

 

    The updated study takes into account the most recent market conditions and the shifting regulatory outlook facing coal plants. To reflect the remaining regulatory uncertainty, the authors developed both "strict" and "lenient" regulatory scenarios for required environmental control technology. About 59,000 MW will likely retire under lenient rules versus 77,000 MW under strict regulations. Final regulatory requirements are still unresolved, but the authors suspect they will be akin to the lenient scenario. The study highlights that retirement projections are even more sensitive to future market conditions than to regulations, particularly natural gas prices. Likely coal plant retirements drop to between 21,000 and 35,000 MW if natural gas prices increase by just $1.00/MMBtu relative to April 2012 forward prices. Similarly, projected coal plant retirements would increase to between 115,000 and 141,000 MW if natural gas prices were to decrease by $1.00/MMBtu.

 

    Frank Graves, Brattle principal and co-author of the study said, "Our analysis indicates that future coal retirements will be a bit more than double the level announced to date. The impacts will be modest over large areas, but more acute locally, especially for owners of smaller fleets that are predominantly coal-based. Everything else being equal, this amount of retirement will be enough to increase prices in both electric and gas markets for a few years, but we do not envision that impact to be large or persistent enough to alter retirement decisions."

 

    The study does find, however, that the financial and operational implications may be substantial, even if overall reliability is not significantly affected. The authors find that $126 to $144 billion of investments will be needed to retrofit and replace coal capacity. Approximately 80% of the likely coal plant retirements will be generating plants owned by traditionally regulated utilities, such as investor-owned utilities and public power companies (as opposed to unregulated merchant generating companies). These changes could be difficult for smaller generation companies or utilities with predominantly coal-fired generation; for instance, an estimated 4% of coal plant owners (controlling about 20,000 MW of the total U.S. coal plant capacity) would need to retire more than 50% of their generation fleet. The analysis concludes, "However, once industry-wide compliance adjustments are made, the coal fleet should be as profitable as it would have been absent the environmental rules."

 

    Access a release from Brattle (click here). Access the complete 13-page update (click here). Access a 2-page Executive Summary (click here). Access the 48-page, 2010 Analysis (click here). Access links to other Brattle studies on Coal Plant Retirements (click here). [#Energy/Coal]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

President's Order Stops Oregon Chinese Wind Energy Project

Sep 28: The President issued an order prohibiting the acquisition and ownership of four wind farm project companies by Ralls Corporation, its owners, its subsidiaries, and its affiliates.  The order directs Ralls Corporation to divest its interest in the wind farm project companies that it acquired earlier this year, and to take other actions related to the divestment.  Ralls Corporation is owned by Chinese nationals, and is affiliated with a Chinese construction equipment company that manufactures wind turbines.  The wind farm sites are all within or in the vicinity of restricted air space at Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman in Oregon.

The President took this action pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (section 721). Section 721 authorizes the President to suspend or prohibit certain acquisitions of U.S. businesses by foreign persons where he finds that there is credible evidence that the foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair national security, and where provisions of law other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect national security in the matter under review.

    The Order states in part, "There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that Ralls Corporation (Ralls), a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, and its subsidiaries, and the Sany Group (which includes Sany Electric and Sany Heavy Industries), a Chinese company affiliated with Ralls (together, the Companies); and, Mr. Dawei Duan (Mr. Duan) and Mr. Jialing Wu (Mr. Wu), citizens of the People's Republic of China and senior executives of the Sany Group, who together own Ralls; through exercising control of Lower Ridge Windfarm, LLC, High Plateau Windfarm, LLC, Mule Hollow Windfarm, LLC, and Pine City Windfarm, LLC (collectively, the Project Companies), all limited liability companies organized under the laws of Oregon, might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States. . ."

    A release from the Treasury Department indicates that, "The President's action demonstrates the Administration's commitment to protecting national security while maintaining the United States' longstanding policy on open investment. The President exercises his authority under section 721 with a focus on national security concerns and is committed to ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of all foreign investors. The Administration will continue to ensure that the United States remains the most attractive place for businesses to locate, invest, grow, and create jobs. The President's decision is specific to this transaction and is not a precedent with regard to any other foreign direct investment from China or any other country.

The President's decision took into consideration the factors described in subsection 721(f), as appropriate, and the recommendation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that he issue an order prohibiting this transaction. CFIUS is an interagency committee whose purpose is to review transactions that could result in the control of a U.S. business by a foreign person in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.  In assessing the transaction's impact on national security, CFIUS conducted both a 30-day, first-stage review, and an additional 45-day, second-stage investigation. CFIUS's detailed analysis took into account all relevant national security factors, including those elements enumerated in section 721.  CFIUS also received a thorough analysis of the threat posed by this transaction from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as required by section 721.

    CFIUS is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and includes as members the Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the U.S. Trade Representative. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor participate as non-voting, ex-officio members.   

     An article in China Daily included a comment from Zhou Qing, a legal affairs chief of the international development planning department of Sany Group, from which the two founders of Ralls come indicating, "The move probably served Obama's campaign for another presidential term." The article indicates that it is the first time in 22 years that a U.S. president has blocked such a foreign business deal. Qing contended that there are some other wind farms with foreign investment backgrounds near the naval training facility, but they have never been accused of threatening the United States' national security.

    A posting from the bipartisan Governor's Wind Energy Coalition (GWEC) cites a comment by Josh Zive, a Washington-based lawyer and lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani who is an expert on CIFUS issues, saying the decision likely will be closely watched by foreign investors, especially those in China who feel they have faced undue scrutiny for years. He also noted that the decision will allow Obama to deliver a tough-on-China message on the campaign trail, whatever the underlying reason for the decision. He said, "Even if it didn't have political motivation, it certainly has a political utility."

    Access a release from the Treasury Department (click here). Access the President's Order (click here). Access the China Daily (click here). Access the GWEC posting (click here). [Energy/Wind]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Major World Study Says It's Not Too Late For Troubled Fisheries

Sep 27: A study published in Science magazine contains new population assessments for thousands of fisheries around the globe, providing insight on the health of data-poor fisheries that account for more than 80 percent of the world's catch. The research confirms suspicions that these fisheries are in decline, but it also highlights hope for the future: most of these fisheries have not yet collapsed. The new study in Science is embedded in a larger study, Charting a Course to Sustainable Fisheries, released this week by the consulting firm, California Environmental Associates (CEA). This broader study evaluates the successes and gaps in fishery management and conservation programs around the world. It points to the fact that we know how to bring back dwindling fisheries, but political battles often trump putting these concepts into action. The report, which involved over 100 scientists and conservation professionals, was supported by the Waitt Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Oak Foundation and others. 

 

    According to a release, "If we act quickly to prevent overfishing and allow depleted stocks to recover to sustainable levels, they could provide more seafood over the long-term. This could increase the amount of fish brought to shore by 8-40 percent on average -- and more than double it in some areas -- compared to yields predicted if we continue current fishing trends." University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) scientist Steve Gaines said, "Until now, our sense of how fisheries are doing has been based on a minute fraction of the world's fisheries -- the large, valuable stocks for which we have lots of data. This represents only a few hundred of over 10,000 fish stocks. It's a tiny slice that can give us a skewed view." Lead author and economist Christopher Costello said, "For most fisheries, we simply didn't know how many fish were out there and whether their populations were trending up or down. Without good information on fish populations, managing sustainably can be a hard thing to do. It's like trying to decide how far you can drive your car without knowing how much gas is in the tank."

    The study provides a new global status report that includes these previously unmeasured fisheries. It brings thousands of what managers call "unassessed" fisheries into focus, using new methods to estimate fish populations. The results show that over half the world's fisheries are in decline. Across the globe, stocks with robust data are doing better than those less-studied, regardless of the country that manages them. University of Washington scientist Ray Hilborn, a co-author of the study said, "If we look at assessed stocks we can be pretty satisfied that fishery management systems are generally working to assure long term sustainability. For unassessed stocks, this doesn't appear to be true."

    The scientists found that for large-scale fisheries, the stocks that we measure and track are at similar levels as those that we have not formally measured. However, under current fishing pressure their futures look very different: the assessed stocks are starting to show signs of recovery, while large, data-poor populations continue to decline. In small scale fisheries, the data-poor or "unassessed" stocks are in far worse shape than their studied counterparts, and many are plummeting at alarming rates. These fisheries are critical to local food security in many parts of the world. Costello said, "Without good population estimates, political pressure tends to dominate decision making, and we end up catching too much. Over time, this can lead a fishery to collapse."

    UCSB ecologist, Sarah Lester said, "The impact on food security is most significant for local-level fisheries in poorer countries, but this isn't just a developing world problem. Small, unassessed fisheries in the U.S. and Europe are often in as bad a shape as those in the developing world." The scientists caution that the new method cannot take the place of formal assessment programs for individual fisheries, but their approach provides accurate global and regional information that they hope will inform fisheries management decisions. Gaines said, "At a regional scale, we can gain up to 80 percent of the insights of traditional assessment approaches with just 1 percent of the cost."

    The closer a fishery is to collapse, the harder and more uncertain its recovery. However, the researchers say that with prompt action the majority of the world's fish populations could still rebound. Gaines said, "Strong management could increase the number of fish in the ocean by over 50 percent. When fish populations are healthy they produce more young. It may seem paradoxical, but we can get more fish on our plates by leaving more in the water." The gains expected from recovery are most pronounced for small scale fisheries, many of which are in countries that face rapid population growth and depend on fish for local food security. Even in North America and Europe, recovery would bring both economic and environmental benefits. Costello said, "The good news here is that it's not too late. These fisheries can rebound. But the longer we wait, the harder and more costly it will be to bring these fisheries back. In another ten years, the window of opportunity may have closed."

    Report author Matthew Elliott said, "We know what works. Fishery management policies and practices have been tried, tested, and proven." In the U.S., for example, many large fisheries are starting to recover. The report's analysis shows that these gains result from a combination of efforts: relying on strong science to set total allowable fishing levels, closing some areas to allow for rebuilding, and using sustainable seafood markets and policies that help fishermen have secure access to a proportion of catch. While there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to eliminate overfishing, the report shows that many of the same principles are applied in successful, local management efforts around the world.

    Elliott said, "The key is to use and share these practices more broadly. In many areas of the world, particularly in the tropics and sub-tropics, we see fisheries expanding quickly with little in the way of management. This research fills an important information gap for these fisheries. We hope it will draw more international attention to fisheries management in the many parts of the world that we have historically ignored. Healthy ocean fisheries hold the potential to feed a growing population without destroying the supporting ecosystems to the point where they no longer produce seafood," adds Elliott. "Within our lifetime, we can make sustainable global fisheries the norm rather than the exception."

    Amanda Leland, Vice President of Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF's) Oceans Program issued a statement commenting on the report saying, "This study is a blueprint for recovering the world's ocean fish populations. Giving fishermen a concrete stake in the fishery means that they are invested in protecting it. When overfishing ends, the amount the entire fleet can catch increases, as does fishermen's share of the catch. Economic interest and conservation interest go hand in hand and fishermen lead the way.

    "There are lessons to be learned from U.S. fisheries, which have turned a corner -- U.S. seafood landings have reached a 17-year high, values have increased thanks in part to catch shares which are growing fish populations. Sixty-five percent of all fish that are now caught in US federal waters are caught in fisheries in catch shares or other rights-based management programs. EDF has partnered with fishermen in many countries to transform fisheries management. The key is to empower fishermen, by giving them incentives to recover fish populations. Without making this work for fishermen there will be no way to stop the global decline and conserve fisheries that will be so important to feed a growing global population. This study shows that recovering the world's fisheries is absolutely critical, and, by working with fishermen, completely achievable."

     Andrew Sharpless, CEO of the largest international ocean conservation organization -- Oceana -- issued a statement on report saying, "This study finally lays to rest the question of whether or not the world's fisheries are in crisis -- they are. As the authors report, more than half of the world's fisheries are in decline. And as they point out, worst hit are small scale fisheries which are critical for feeding hungry people all around the world. We believe that this report provides a clear call to action. We need to quickly put in place responsible management measures in the countries that control most of the world's wild seafood. As the study finds, putting in place these measures would allow depleted stocks to recover to sustainable levels and could result in future catches that are up to 40 percent larger than are predicted if current unsustainable fishing practices continue. . .

    We know from past experience all around the world – including in the "assessed fisheries" described by the authors – that putting in place better fisheries management allows fisheries to rebound. And we agree with the authors' prescription for these measures – science based quotas and habitat protection. We do believe that they (and the world's fishery managers) should place a great emphasis on reducing bycatch which is critical to the future of our wild fish stocks. One other critical point not covered in this study is that putting in place these management measures does not take an international treaty. Just 25 countries control 75% of the world's fish catch and can -- through their own legal systems -- put in place the policies that can allow fisheries to recover. The world has a moral obligation to act on the findings of this study as it would enable the sea to feed 400 million hungry people living in major fishing nations and would help offset the projected dramatic increase in demand for protein from a world population that is forecasted to rise to 9 billion people by 2050."

    Access a release on the report from CEA (click here). Access the release from EDF (click here). Access the statement from Oceana (click here). Access the complete report, executive summary, complete appendices and related information (click here). [#Wildlife/Fisheries]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals