Spatial and temporal distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Cape Cod Bay, and implications for management

Cape Cod Bay (Massachusetts) is the only known winter and early spring feeding area for concentrations of the endangered North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) population. During January–May, 1998–2002, 167 aerial surveys were conducted (66,466 km of total survey effort), providing a complete representation of the spatiotemporal distribution of right whales in the bay during winter and spring. A total of 1553 right whales were sighted; some of these sightings were multiple sightings of the same individuals. Right whale distribution and relative abundance patterns were quantified as sightings per unit of effort (SPUE) and partitioned into 103 23-km2 cells and 12 2-week periods. Significant interannual variations in mean SPUE and timing of SPUE maxima were likely due to physically forced changes in available food resources. The area of greatest SPUE expanded and contracted during the season but its center remained in the eastern bay. Most cells with SPUE>0 were inside the federal critical habitat (CH) and this finding gave evidence of the need for management measures within CH boundaries to reduce anthropogenic mortality from vessel strikes and entanglement. There was significant within-season SPUE variability: low in December−January, increasing to a maximum in late February−early April, and declining to zero in May; and these results provide support for management measures from 1 January

Abundance and population density of cetaceans in the California Current ecosystem

The abundance and population density of cetaceans along the U.S. west coast were estimated from ship surveys conducted in the summer and fall of 1991, 1993, 1996, 2001, and 2005 by using multiple-covariate, line-transect analyses. Overall, approximately 556,000 cetaceans of 21 species were estimated to be in the 1,141,800-km2 study area. Delphinoids (Delphinidae and Phocoenidae), the most abundant group, numbered ~540,000 individuals. Abundance in other taxonomic groups included ~5800 baleen whales (Mysticeti), ~7000 beaked whales (Ziphiidae), and ~3200 sperm whales (Physeteridae). This study provides the longest time series of abundance estimates that includes all the cetacean species in any marine ecosystem. These estimates will be used to interpret the impacts of human-caused mortality (such as that documented in fishery bycatch and that caused by ship strikes and other means) and to evaluate the ecological role of cetaceans in the California Current ecosystem.

History of Whaling and Estimated Kill of Right Whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924

This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.

A comparison between circle hook and J hook performance in the dolphinfish, yellowfish tuna, and wahoo troll fishery off the coast of North Carolina

We compared numbers of strikes, proportions of fish that hooked up after strikes, proportions of fish that stayed on hook (retained) after hook up, and numbers of fish caught between circle and J hooks rigged with dead natural fish bait (ballyhoo)and trolled for three oceanic predator species: dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri). Interactions were compared between circle and J hooks fished on 75 trips by two user groups (charter and recreational fishermen). Hooks were affixed to three species-specific leader types most commonly fished in this region: monofilament (dolphinfish), fluorocarbon (tuna), and wire (wahoo). Numbers of fish caught per trip and three potential mechanisms that might inf luence numbers caught (i.e., number of strikes, proportion of fish hooked, and proportion retained) were modeled with generalized linear models that considered hook type, leader type, species, user (fishing) group, and wave height as main effects. Hook type was a main effect at the catch level; generally, more fish were caught on J hooks than on circle hooks. The effect of hook type on strike rates was equivocal. However, J hooks had a greater proportion of hook-ups than did circle hooks. Finally, the proportion of fish retained once hooked was generally equal between hook types. We found similar results when data from additional species were pooled as a “tuna” group and a “mackerel” group. We conclude that J hooks are more effective than circle hooks at the hook-up level and result in greater numbers of troll-caught dolphinfish, tunas

Marine Vertebrates and Low Frequency Sound: Technical Report for LFA EIS

Over the past 50 years, economic and technological developments have dramatically increased the human contribution to ambient noise in the ocean. The dominant frequencies of most human-made noise in the ocean is in the low-frequency range (defined as sound energy below 1000Hz), and low-frequency sound (LFS) may travel great distances in the ocean due to the unique propagation characteristics of the deep ocean (Munk et al. 1989). For example, in the Northern Hemisphere oceans low-frequency ambient noise levels have increased by as much as 10 dB during the period from 1950 to 1975 (Urick 1986; review by NRC 1994). Shipping is the overwhelmingly dominant source of low-frequency manmade noise in the ocean, but other sources of manmade LFS including sounds from oil and gas industrial development and production activities (seismic exploration, construction work, drilling, production platforms), and scientific research (e.g., acoustic tomography and thermography, underwater communication). The SURTASS LFA system is an additional source of human-produced LFS in the ocean, contributing sound energy in the 100-500 Hz band. When considering a document that addresses the potential effects of a low-frequency sound source on the marine environment, it is important to focus upon those species that are the most likely to be affected. Important criteria are: 1) the physics of sound as it relates to biological organisms; 2) the nature of the exposure (i.e. duration, frequency, and intensity); and 3) the geographic region in which the sound source will be operated (which, when considered with the distribution of the organisms will determine which species will be exposed). The goal in this section of the LFA/EIS is to examine the status, distribution, abundance, reproduction, foraging behavior, vocal behavior, and known impacts of human activity of those species may be impacted by LFA operations. To focus our efforts, we have examined species that may be physically affected and are found in the region where the LFA source will be operated. The large-scale geographic location of species in relation to the sound source can be determined from the distribution of each species. However, the physical ability for the organism to be impacted depends upon the nature of the sound source (i.e. explosive, impulsive, or non-impulsive); and the acoustic properties of the medium (i.e. seawater) and the organism. Non-impulsive sound is comprised of the movement of particles in a medium. Motion is imparted by a vibrating object (diaphragm of a speaker, vocal chords, etc.). Due to the proximity of the particles in the medium, this motion is transmitted from particle to particle in waves away from the sound source. Because the particle motion is along the same axis as the propagating wave, the waves are longitudinal. Particles move away from then back towards the vibrating source, creating areas of compression (high pressure) and areas of rarefaction (low pressure). As the motion is transferred from one particle to the next, the sound propagates away from the sound source. Wavelength is the distance from one pressure peak to the next. Frequency is the number of waves passing per unit time (Hz). Sound velocity (not to be confused with particle velocity) is the impedance is loosely equivalent to the resistance of a medium to the passage of sound waves (technically it is the ratio of acoustic pressure to particle velocity). A high impedance means that acoustic particle velocity is small for a given pressure (low impedance the opposite). When a sound strikes a boundary between media of different impedances, both reflection and refraction, and a transfer of energy can occur. The intensity of the reflection is a function of the intensity of the sound wave and the impedances of the two media. Two key factors in determining the potential for damage due to a sound source are the intensity of the sound wave and the impedance difference between the two media (impedance mis-match). The bodies of the vast majority of organisms in the ocean (particularly phytoplankton and zooplankton) have similar sound impedence values to that of seawater. As a result, the potential for sound damage is low; organisms are effectively transparent to the sound – it passes through them without transferring damage-causing energy. Due to the considerations above, we have undertaken a detailed analysis of species which met the following criteria: 1) Is the species capable of being physically affected by LFS? Are acoustic impedence mis-matches large enough to enable LFS to have a physical affect or allow the species to sense LFS? 2) Does the proposed SURTASS LFA geographical sphere of acoustic influence overlap the distribution of the species? Species that did not meet the above criteria were excluded from consideration. For example, phytoplankton and zooplankton species lack acoustic impedance mis-matches at low frequencies to expect them to be physically affected SURTASS LFA. Vertebrates are the organisms that fit these criteria and we have accordingly focused our analysis of the affected environment on these vertebrate groups in the world’s oceans: fishes, reptiles, seabirds, pinnipeds, cetaceans, pinnipeds, mustelids, sirenians (Table 1).