News

White Shark Tagging Map

Adam Brown, White Shark Biologist with Point Reyes Bird Observatory, has been studying white sharks on Southeast Farallon Island since 2000. He will be Beth and Mike's guest on Coastal Currents on Feb. 8 at noon on KHUM, 104.3 and 104.7 FM.

White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are the ocean's largest predatory sharks. The occasional encounter with humans (and movie producers) has made them the most famous. Although they can grow to almost 21 feet (7 meters), the length of an average shark is closer to 15 feet (5 meters); they weigh about 1,500 pounds (700 kg). White sharks, like some other fish such as salmon sharks and tuna, are warm-bodied -- that is, parts of their bodies can be warmer than the cold water in which they swim.

In the eastern Pacific, white sharks can be found from Alaska to Mexico, but you don't often see them north of Washington State. They hang out near haul-out sites for marine mammals, their main food. People used to believe they roamed only along the California coast. But our tags show that they travel regularly from California to Hawaii. Juvenile white sharks are found in the Southern California Bight, which appears to be an important nursery ground.

The World Conservation Union lists white sharks as vulnerable. Concerns for white shark populations have led to their protection in Californian and Mexican waters. To ensure their long-term survival, we need much more information about where they go to feed and breed. The recent tagging results indicate how little is actually known about white sharks. Also, white sharks will also provide a valuable comparison to results from salmon and mako sharks that are also capable of elevating their body temperature.

To view the white shark tagging map by Tagging of Pacific Predators (TOPP), click HERE.

Tagging of Pacific Predators (TOPP) began in 2000 as one of 17 projects of the Census of Marine Life, an ambitious 10-year, 80-nation endeavor to assess and explain the diversity and abundance of life in the oceans, and where that life has lived, is living, and will live.

Conservationists concerned over coho recovery plan; fisheries service emphasizes that plan is not final

2/1/12

Watershed groups and other conservationists expressed concern Tuesday night with terms used to rank salmon population areas in the a long-awaited draft recovery plan in fear it would reduce efforts for populations not listed as a “priority.”

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration' fish biologist Julie Weeder, the recovery coordinator, said the terminology was not meant to reduce any efforts, but the feedback was exactly the type of information the National Marine Fisheries Service was looking for. She said the agency is required to create the plan, a set of guidelines for the recovery of coho salmon in Southern Oregon and Northern California, but the implementation is voluntary. The coho salmon was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1997 after habitat degradation, harvest and water diversion, drought, floods and poor ocean conditions led to its depletion.

”I firmly believe that this plan will not succeed unless it makes sense to people,” Weeder said, adding that she wants as much community input as possible to create a more accurate final draft and encourage community participation.

After 12 years of research, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service released its draft recovery plan in January. Clarence Hostler, a regional supervisor with NOAA, said the service recognizes that the draft still needs to be revised, and it will continue to be revised throughout the years. The plan is scheduled to be updated every five years.

”It's better to have an imperfect plan, rather than no plan at all,” he said.

According to the service, the plan will provide short term solutions and long term solutions to restore habitat, ranging from increasing channel complexity by adding woody debris, to improving the timing or volume of water flow by establishing statewide groundwater permit program. The plan also includes guidelines for monitoring and collecting data.

While several individuals at the meeting thanked the service for creating detailed profiles of each area, they were all concerned about the feasibility of the plan. In addition to wanting clarity on the ranking of areas and threats, concerns included addressing timber practices, including language specifying the ability to reassess areas that have been termed as not a “core” area, and extending the comment period for 30 days or longer. The service is holding several other meetings in the next month in Northern California, and the deadline for the comments is March 5. Weeder said she would be willing to meet with people in addition to the public meetings, and it may even be possible to hold another public forum.

Electronic copies of the draft plan are available at www.swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery or on a CD by contacting Cynthia Anderson at 825-5162 or by sending an email with “CD ROM request for SONCC coho salmon draft recovery plan” to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. For more information, contact Julie Weeder at 825-5168 orThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Not All Wetlands Are Created Equal

1/24/12

To many, it’s a familiar scenario: a strip mall suddenly pops up in what was once a desolate quagmire or boggy boondock.

But people are coming to realize that these seemingly wasted plots where land meets water provide a valuable ecological service. In addition to nurturing biodiversity, wetlands purify water, produce fish, store carbon dioxide that would otherwise contribute to global warming, and protect shorelines from floods, storm surges and erosion.

Since the early 20th century, development has claimed over half the wetlands in North America, Europe, Australia and China. To repair the damage from those construction binges and regain the benefits of wetlands, restoration has become a booming business.

Yet new research calls into question whether manmade versions can ever compensate for wetlands buried beneath parking lots and subdivisions. In an article published on Tuesday in PLoS Biology, scientists write that restoration efforts often fall short of returning wetlands to their former biological complexity and functioning.

“In traditional restoration, people repair hydrology, put in some plants, and after a few years say the wetlands are good,” said David Moreno-Mateos, a wetland ecologist at the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve at Stanford University and the lead author of the paper. “But if you look at what’s really going on down there, you see the processes are not recovering.”

“One of the results from this study is that we need to undertake more specific restoration measures focused on recovering processes, not just nice, beautiful wetlands with ducks,” said Dr. Moreno-Mateos, who conducted the research at the University of California, Berkleley.

Before the 1960s, many people perceived wetlands as dank places to be drained or avoided, Dr. Moreno-Mateos said. But in the last 20 years, the governments of the United States Canada, and Mexico have poured over $70 billion into restoring more than seven million acres of wetlands.

Some developers deploy the strategy of promising to create or restore wetlands in one location in exchange for getting permission to bulldoze wetlands in another location. In theory, this sounds fair, but the results fall short, Dr. Moreno-Mateos said.

To quantify the success of restoration projects, the researchers performed a meta-analysis of 621 restored and created wetland sites around the world. Most of the sites were in the United States, and some restoration plots dated back around 100 years. They compared the sites with 556 natural wetlands that served as reference points.

The researchers found that hydrology seemed to recover immediately after restoration, but results varied in areas like the recovery of animals, plants and nutrients. Even after 100 years of restoration, the wetlands recovered only 77 percent of their original flora and fauna, on average.

Within five years animals like birds and bats returned, as did flying insects like midges. Other macroinvertebrates like water fleas took a bit longer, around 5 to 10 years, and these communities usually did not reach their original levels of richness or abundance.

Plants were even slower to recover. On average, they took 30 years to return but still remained less biodiverse and abundant up to 100 years after restoration.

The plant lag may be related to recovering carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus storage. After 50 years, carbon levels were still below reference levels, and it took at least 30 years for nitrogen to return to normal. All in all, restored wetlands regained an average of 74 percent of their biogeochemical components by comparison with the reference sites.

“When we lose wetlands we’re losing something we won’t recover for years,” Dr. Moreno-Mateos said. “When people develop that huge shopping mall, it will take centuries to restore the functions we had before.”

Some wetlands did recover faster than others, depending on hydrology, size and climate. The more water flowing through a site, the more quickly it bounces back to reference values. Larger sites also fared better than smaller plots, and the warmer the temperature, the more rapid the recovery. “In some warm climates, things go fast, but cold climates take forever,” Dr. Moreno-Mateos said.

Read Original Study: Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems

Martin Slough enhancement project moves forward; salmon on Eureka golf course spur restoration work

1/30/12

After more than a decade of work, the Martin Slough enhancement project -- which aims to reduce flooding and improve salmon habitat near the Eureka Municipal Golf Course -- will acquire the funding needed to complete its design.

Don Allan, director of the Natural Resources Service Division for the Redwood Community Action Agency, said the California Department of Fish and Game posted the approval of the project's grant last week.

Allan said agencies first began discussing the a two-phase fish passage improvement, wetland enhancement and flood reduction project on the south side of Eureka in 2000 when the golf course's manager noticed coho salmon living in the Martin Slough.

It's a dual-purpose project -- also supported by State Water Resources Control Board and the city of Eureka -- that will help golfers who use the public course and the salmon who seem to be drawn to slough, he said.

”It's really nice to have a project that can address two things that I think should be important to the community,” Allan said.

The funding from DFG, coupled with the North Coast Land Trust's recent purchase of connected agricultural pasture land, will help the project move forward. RCAA hopes to implement the first phase of the project later this year.

In December, the Land Trust purchased a 36-acre agricultural property at the mouth of Martin Slough for $315,000 in order to facilitate the first phase of the restoration, which includes replacement of the defunct tide gate at the mouth with a more fish-friendly and functional tide gate.

The phase one project will also involve widening the lower Martin Slough channel to increase flow capacity, construction of four acres of tidal wetland, establishment of riparian habitat along the slough and retention of 28 acres of pasture for grazing.

Plaintiffs include InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, which represents 10 Northern California American Indian tribes.

1/26/12

Conservationists and Native American tribes are suing over the U.S. Navy's expanded use of sonar in training exercises off the country's west coast, saying the noise can harass and kill whales and other marine life.

In a lawsuit being filed Thursday by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups claim the National Marine Fisheries Service was wrong to approve the Navy's plan for the expanded training.

They said regulators should have considered the effects repeated sonar use can have on those species over many years and should have restricted where the Navy could conduct sonar and other loud activities to protect orcas, humpbacks and other whales, as well as seals, sea lions and dolphins.

Instead, the Navy is required to look around and see if sea mammals are present before they conduct the training.

Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice, said it's the job of the fisheries service to balance the needs of the Navy with measures to protect marine life.

"Nobody's saying they shouldn't train," she said. "But it can't be possible that it's no-holds-barred."

In 2010, the fisheries service approved the Navy's five-year plan for operations in the Northwest Training Range Complex, an area roughly the size of California that stretches from the waters off California to the Canadian border. The Navy has conducted exercises there for 60 years but in recent years proposed increased weapons testing and submarine training.

The environmental groups want the permit granted to the Navy to be invalidated. They are asking the court to order the fisheries service to study the long-term effects of sonar on marine mammals, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and other laws.

Regulators determined that while sonar use by navies has been associated with the deaths of whales around the world, including the beaching of 37 whales on North Carolina's Outer Banks in 2005, there was little chance of that happening in the U.S. Northwest. The short duration of the sonar use, typically 90 minutes at a time by a single surface vessel, and reduced intensity would help prevent whale deaths, they said. Regulators required the Navy to shut down sonar operations if whales, sea lions, dolphins or other marine mammals were spotted nearby.

The lawsuit, being filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, claims that the Navy's sonar use in the Northwest might be strong enough to kill the animals outright. But even if it doesn't, it claims, the repeated use of sonar in certain critical habitats, such as breeding or feeding grounds, over many years could drive those species away, making it more difficult for them to eat or reproduce. The fisheries service should have ordered the Navy to keep out of such areas, at least seasonally, the environmental groups said.

Read the Press Release