Dolphin Strandings Potentially Under-reported on Cape Cod

Dolphin skull in Wellfleet, MA, found in Indian Neck
marshlands remainder of the dolphin's skeleton was found
 approximately 20ft from skull's location. 

Stranding of whales and dolphins is common on Cape Cod and are parts of some of the earliest recorded history of the Cape. The recent mass standings of Dolphins on Cape Cod bayside beaches has few precidents in the area.  While their are stradings every year the number occuring this winter is unpredented in scope.  Since the middle of January their have been at least 114 dolphin strandings reported on Cape Cod.  The number is undobly higher in a normal year there are a number of unreported strandings that occure.
       Stradings are usally reported to IFAW (the International Fund for Annimal Welfare) by indivduals who spot the stranded dolphins though a 24 hour hot line (508-743-9548).   This means that in order for a dolphin strading to be reported it first must be spotted and then called in.  This envivity leads to unreported strandings because a number are not simply not spotted.  Cape Cod has an extensive bayside shoreline, attached marsh systems, and tidal areas. Not all of these areas are easily accessible.  This is partically true of the town Wellfleet in the winter with large sections of its bay-side uninhabited.

Potential areas in Wellfleet where a dolphin stranding
would be unreported are highlighted in red.

Victory! Destruction of Vernal Pool in Wellfleet to be remediated

Roughly a month ago I along with two other concerned individuals appeared before the Wellfleet Conservation Commission to present the case of the vernal pool's destruction.  At that meeting we went over the issues regarding the vernal pool's destruction and how town bylaws protected the location even in the absence of state certification of the pool's existence.  During this meet the Conservation Commission decided to order the Wellfleet DPW to re-mediate the damage.  I'm not sure what steps might be taken but I pointed out that the gravel fill that they lined the former pool's bottom with would have to be removed to re-establish a correct ph for the pools wildlife.  Since this time it is my understanding that the town's engineer is drawing up a plan to restore the area but that the restoration could be costly.  This just leads back to the point of why didn't the Wellfleet DPW check with anyone especially after an abutter came down and talked to them objecting to their proposed work before they went ahead with the removal.  Did you know that the conservation agent in town has to answer their phone 24/7?  Seriously a simple call would have prevented the whole fiasco.  I hope that this event is used to reform the practices of the Wellfleet DPW which currently runs with little oversight.  

On a serious positive note the town will likely do a total re-assessment of their engineering maps to ensure that wetlands are properly delineated as there were some additional areas that were quickly pointed out to be wetlands that were not on town maps.  This should protect these locations and critical habitats (specifically vernal pools and isolated wetlands) in the future not only from misguided town departments but from private developmental as well which is huge.  Though this process I have learned a great deal on a lot of the issues surrounding environmental protect on a local level.  I am planning my next post on vernal pool protection on a town by town basis on Cape Cod as well as how to get them certified in the State of Massachusetts, I also might do one that goes on a state by state basis but the research for that will take longer.  Also the environmental groups and the Mass DEP were entirely unhelpful, most never bothered to return my calls or emails, the only one that got back to me was the Sierra Club with a email which read "fyi- some of our Sierra Club members have been involved in listing vernal pools on private property in the past."  That sentence was the extent of their reply I should also note that it was sent to ten other people as well, which is even more concerning as that means that the destruction of these habitats are happening statewide and they are doing very little.   

The amount of research that I had to do after initially being brushed off defiantly makes me wonder about the enforcement of environmental laws.  I am not sure how many other people, especially those that work full time like I do would devote the amount of time that was necessary to achieve a resolution.  It is likely that I might have to take further action in the future as so far the agreed upon restoration has not started, but we shall see.  Oh and on a personal note it felt GREAT to make a difference like that, its an experience I highly recommend.  

On a side if anyone needs help researching for a local environmental issue I would be happy to help.

Sealing a Fisheries Fate, NOAA's failure to take into account increased predation Gulf of Maine Fishery

Grey Seals on ice flows in Wellfleet Harbor

Sealing a Fishery’s Fate

The recent NOAA cod counts are part of a disturbing trend of lower than expected counts across a variety of fish species, including, striped bass, cod, and yellowtail flounder, and threatens New England’s traditional fishing industry. Already, the industry has been adversely affected by sector management, which intentionally or unintentionally favors the consolidation of the fishing industry. Sector management policies are exacerbating the decline of the local dayboat industry, and are having a detrimental economic impact upon Cape Cape’s year-round employment.

Now, the cod counts are indicating that the fishery is in worse health than previously believed which could lead to the general collapse of the local groundfishing industry. This is because in order to protect the cod population there will be drastic cuts in the cod quota, or the fishery may be completely closed. A reduction in the cod quota will effectively reduce the entire groundfishing fishery since it is impossible to selectively target one species of groundfish without at least catching some individuals of other groundfish species. So, if a boat is fishing for a species such as haddock, supposedly a healthy fishery (though who knows with the trend of recent fish surveys provided by NOAA, they will inevitably, also catch some cod. In order to protect the cod fishery, the other related fisheries will also have to be closed once the cod quota is met. This will inflict grievous harm on an increasingly fragile industry and could lead to the end of a traditional way of life.

Many fishermen point to issues of accuracy in NOAA’s surveys, specifically since the commissioning of the Bigelow in 2005(NOAA’s current survey ship), as one of the reasons behind the reduced fish counts. However, there is another potential culprit that has largely been ignored by the greater scientific community. The seal population in the Gulf of Maine has exploded in the last twenty years. With the absence of apex predators, excepting a few Great White sharks that have been sighted off of Chatham, the seal population has no natural check on its numbers and is federally protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

The last official survey of the seal population in the Gulf of Maine was completed over a decade ago in 2001 counted roughly 100,000 individuals. Conservatively, by extrapolating from the observed rate of the growth the population now is at least 200,000 seals (this is below the previously observed rate of growth of 8.7% according to NOAA). On average seals eat between 5-8% of their body weight in fish a day. It can be assumed with the population of seals in the region made up primarily of harbor seals and larger grey seals, that the average seal in the region weighs somewhere around 300lbs (136.36kg). (In the absence of a current survey the specific breakdown of the seal population is unknown.) So a single seal that consumes 6% of its body weight a day eats 18lbs (8.18kg) of fish a day. This means, that over the course of a year the seals conservatively consume 598,000 metric tons of various fish.  For comparison, in 2010 a total of 94,942 metric tons of groundfish were landing in all of New England of which about 5700 metric tons were codfish.  Seals undoubtedly have a more extensive diet than just ground-fish but the point is that NOAA does not know the feeding habits of the Gulf of Maine Seals.

Predation is not the sole detrimental effect the increased seal population is having on the area’s fish populations. There has also been a corresponding increase in what are commonly called, “seal” or “cod” worms. These parasitic worms infect a variety of groundfish species but are particularly fond of cod. Seal worms have been documented to increase the stress on infected fish and contribute to reduced rates of growth and higher mortality rates.

NOAA's most recent cod assessment says in regard to the effects of seals "The working group did discuss the possible impacts of seal predation on assumptions of natural mortality. There is a general presumption that seal populations have been increasing in the region over the past twenty years, though no definitive estimates exist to evaluate the trends or relative scale of a population increase. It is possible that increases in the seal population could lead to increased cod predation which could suggest that M [cod mortality rates] should be temporally increasing in the more recent time period. While these concerns were noted, there is no empirical basis to evaluate the current size of the seal populations and their trends over the last thirty years, nor are there estimates of the rate of seal consumption of cod and how that rate has varied through time. Additionally, while seals are known to prey on cod, they are generalist feeders and the importance of cod in the diet of Gulf of Maine grey seals is unknown. There is limited information that suggests that cod represent only a minor component of harbor seal diet along the Maine coast (Wood 2001)." To put simply, NOAA has no idea as to what effects the seals are having on the cod population, or on the fish populations as a whole, and since they have no idea that they simply do not include it in their calculations!

The failure to account increasing for effects of seal predation and related parasitic infections on the area’s fisheries calls into question NOAA and the New England Fishery Management Council’s understanding of ocean ecology and their ability to form an effective fisheries management strategy. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is aware of the potential issues regarding the seal population and the need for additional studies to be held.

It is impossible to look at the oceanic ecology of the Gulf of Maine without quickly realizing that it has been drastically altered by human activities over the last four hundred years. Like many heavily impacted ecosystems, it may no longer be a self-regulating system. The governmental agencies responsible for fisheries management are currently overly focused on direct human disturbances, discounting our indirect effects, and similar disturbances caused by “natural” effects. Proper fisheries management strategies for the Gulf of Maine and many other fisheries around the world can no longer simply be the management of direct human impacts upon a particular fish species (catch limits, days at sea restrictions, etc). Instead, an entirely new strategy is called for where the entire marine system is examined and relationships between its member species (and humans) is carefully mapped and their impacts on one another accessed to prevent overfishing of fish stocks and allowing the fish stocks of the Gulf of Main to recover. There is also a pressing need for more frequent surveys of the marine ecosystem. The current example of the cod population last prior to the most recent survey last being surveyed in 2008 and the seal population in 2001.  NOAA's failure to include the effects of the seal population upon the Gulf of Maine ecosystem is not the lone example of such errors. Furthermore, it is indicative of the systematic failure to properly account for the interrelationships between species.



NOAA Cod assessment
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/gomcod/GoM_cod_SAW53_AssessmentReport-WP1_11142011.pdf
Report on Seals
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/3701/WHOI-2010-04.pdf?sequence=1