I’ve actually been keeping rather silent on the whole Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  I think it is one of those things that I was hoping would be solved before I could muster a post and before we find ourselves breaking an oil spill record for US waters; a record set in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez when it dumped almost 11 million gallons into Prince William Sound.  Well, current estimates indicate we are still below the Valdez catastrophe, but with the absence of a sound solution I am beginning to wonder.  Yet, I will continue to remain optimistic for the time being; if optimism is even applicable to a situation that could have been avoided.  And with bycatch, overfishing, marine debris, ghost fishing, dead zones and pollution already wreaking havoc on our oceans at this time, the last thing they really needed was another oily mess.

This is a great reminder that oil spills can happen anywhere and our preparedness is the first line of defense for marine wildlife and habitats should a disaster occur.  The San Francisco Estuary Partnership and Pacific Environment have organized a forum for Tuesday, May 11th, to better prepare for oil spills should the San Francisco Bay be confronted with such a problem.

I was passed the following video via a sea turtle listserv and thought I’d share some real-life CSI action with everyone.  NOAA Marine Forensics- “Investigators in Puerto Rico were tipped off that an organized ring of poachers was selling turtle meat on the black market. This evidence was used to convict the turtle poachers on charges of illegally fishing and selling the meat and eggs of an endangered species.”

Happy WORLD OCEAN DAY! 

The United Nations has officially declared June 8th as World Ocean Day and declared it as an “opportunity to raise global awareness of the current challenges faced by the international community in connection with the oceans.”

So here’s a video to get you started in ocean stewardship:

I’m not sure the latest wayward marine mammal has made the national headlines, but in and around the greater San Francisco Bay Area a bottlenose dolphin 90 miles from sea has caught the attention of Californians. Similar incidents happen every so often and within the last year and a half have included a couple of humpback whales and a few sea lions that have veered off their ocean courses and navigated the delta and river system.

Well, hearing that story prior to a late night walk sparked a conversation that eventually evolved into contemplation about unexplained marine mammal behaviors such as strandings. Perhaps it was not necessarily a dialogue but more like a brainstorming session or spoken tag cloud bringing together species, strandings, research, and theories. And a post-walk news search turned up, ironically, a very recent Jan 13, 2009 article highlighting a ruling that would allow the U.S. Navy to continue training with sonar and bombs in Hawaiian waters. The catch, tongue in cheek, is that the Navy must try to protect whales and other marine animals from the harmful effects. Additionally, the chain of coincidences continued as I happen to be simultaneously watching NatGeo’s Aftermath: Population Zero and writing this very piece when the subject of the effects of manmade noise on ocean life was raised by the narrator.

Now that all the tea leaves have aligned in favor of ocean noise pollution, I guess the only relevant thing I can do is provide some information and research I have encountered. According to the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), scientists have proven the use of sonar to be dangerous to marine life and cite numerous cases involving uses of sonar that coincided with the strandings of multiple whale species across the globe. The NRDC states, “Many of these beached whales have suffered physical trauma, including bleeding around the brain, ears and other tissues. In addition, many have shown symptoms akin to a severe case of the bends.”

The information on the NRDC website was great, but I wanted to get a first hand glance at the reports, research, and conclusions.  Hence, I peeked through three reports on the effects of noise on marine mammals produced by the National Research Council in 1994, 2000 and 2003.  According to the reports for example, strandings of beaked whales were unmistakably connected to the use of mid-range tactical sonar, beluga whales demonstrated behavioral responses to icebreakers as far away as 50km, and gray whales and orcas abandoned critical habitats because of manmade noise.  The reports also documented more subtle behavioral modifications to which long term injurious effects are not yet known:

-Shorter surfacings
-Shorter dives
-Fewer blows per surfacing
-Longer intervals between blows
-Ceasing or increasing vocalizations
-Shortening or lengthening duration of vocalizations
-Changing frequency or intensity of vocalizations

With over 90% of worldwide trade utilizing ocean transportation, the dominant sounds in our seas have shifted from marine life to shipping.  We are now faced with what must be done to ensure the effects, or accumulation of effects that such a shift in ocean noise will ultimately have on the survival of marine mammals.

“This intentional and unintentional introduction of sound in the ocean associated with activities beneficial to humans must be balanced against known deleterious effects on marine mammals.” Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals (2003)

Severely depleted during the intense whaling periods of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the right whale, so duly named by whalers as a profitable species for their thick layer of blubber, oil yield, baleen, slow speed, surface dwelling behavior, and post-mortem floatability, is still, in the 21st century, hovering on the brink of extinction. In fact the North Atlantic right whale is the most endangered off American coasts.

Although most whaling practices have been surrendered to history, right whales are still under siege from commercial maritime operations. Ghost fishing, a term used to describe abandoned fishing gear adrift in our oceans, and other marine debris pose entanglement dangers to right whales and all species that rely on oceans for their survival. However, the most serious risk to the stability of the approximate 300 individuals that comprise the North Atlantic Right Whale population is ship collisions.

Migrating along the U.S. Atlantic coastline between foraging areas in the northeastern U.S. and Canada and breeding/calving areas in the southeastern U.S., right whales are instinctively drawn to waters laden with human activity and intense vessel traffic. The same attributes that attracted commercial whalers to right whales precludes them from avoiding oncoming ships. In addition, their dark skin and lack of dorsal fin make them difficult to see against the ocean waters.

Ship collisions are responsible for 35.5% of recorded right whale deaths between 1970 and 1999. The important point being that many ship strikes go unreported as large ships, such as containers, tankers, and cruise ships, may be completely unaware that their vessel has collided with a whale. According to NOAA, “It is also likely that ships of all sizes under no authority to report, in fact, do not, out of apathy or fear of enforcement consequences.”

The danger of overlapping migratory routes and shipping lanes is compounded by the ever increasing demand for timely cargo deliveries and tight schedules that leave little time for delays. Realizing that speed limits were vital to right whale rehabilitation, NOAA, in 2006, announced a Ship Strike Reduction Rule that would effectively create a 30-nautical-mile zone of protection in which ships would be required to reduce speeds to 10 nautical miles per hour during certain times of the year.

Unfortunately, the proposal was met with stark criticism from shipping companies that were concerned about the added costs associated with losing time. According to the Washington Post (August 26, 2008), “The Bush administration yesterday proposed scaling back protected zones for endangered whales in the Atlantic Ocean, yielding to cargo companies’ concerns about new speed limits for ships in these areas.”

Thus, NOAA revised their initial scientifically back plan calling for speed reduction buffer zones, and reduced the area of protection to 20 nautical miles. Unfortunately, the Administration’s decision for a reduction in the zone of protection is counterproductive to a species that has and continues to barely endure human commercial operations. Perhaps we need to revisit the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and look closely at the purpose of this legislation as we are again favoring economic growth and development over a species of immense esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.