DOCSLIB.ORG

B2B CD-ROM Data Sets 121 History of the Process 3 Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific Ecoregion 32 PCA 22

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
B2B CD-ROM Data Sets 121 History of the Process 3 Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific Ecoregion 32 PCA 22 Marine Priority Conservation Areas Baja California to the Bering Sea This publication was prepared by the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in coordina- tion with officials and consultants of the CEC Secretariat. The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the governments of Canada, Mexico or the United States of America. Reproduction of this publication in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit purposes may be made without special permission from the CEC Secretariat, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The CEC would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication or material that uses this document as a source. For more information: Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America 393, rue Saint-Jacques Ouest, bureau 200 Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9 Tel: (514) 350-4300 Fax: (514) 350-4314 www.cec.org [email protected] About MCBI Founded in 1996 by Dr. Elliott Norse, the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI) © Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2005 is a nonprofit, tax-exempt scientific and conservation advocacy organization. MCBI focuses its activities on promoting cooperation essential to protecting and restoring the ISBN: 2-923358-09-0 Earth's biological integrity, and advancing the new science of marine conservation biol- ogy. From our headquarters in Redmond, WA, and our Washington, DC, and California Legal Deposit-Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2005 offices, we work to protect and restore marine life on the West Coast, around the United Legal Deposit-Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 2005 States and beyond by encouraging research and training in marine conservation biolo- gy, bringing scientists together to examine crucial marine conservation issues, doing pol- icy research to frame the marine conservation agenda, conducting outreach to educate Printed in Canada on recycled paper. scientists, the public and decision makers on key issues, and building partnerships to solve problems affecting marine life and people. Disponible en español About the CEC Cite as: Morgan, Lance, Sara Maxwell, Fan Tsao, Tara A.C. Wilkinson, and Peter Etnoyer. Marine Priority Conservation Areas: Baja California to the Bering Sea. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is an international organization Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America and the created under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) Marine Conservation Biology Institute. Montreal, February 2005. by Canada, Mexico and the United States to address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts and promote the effective enforce- Cover photo: Circling jacks (Caranx sexfasciatus), Las Animas, Sea of Cortez ment of environmental law. NAAEC complements the environmental provisions estab- Phillip Colla, OceanLight.com lished in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to which it is a side accord. Marine Priority Conservation Areas Baja California to the Bering Sea Lance Morgan Sara Maxwell Fan Tsao Tara A.C. Wilkinson Peter Etnoyer Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America Marine Conservation Biology Institute February 2005 Table of Contents Executive Summary iv Description of Priority Conservation Areas Montereyan Pacific Transition Ecoregion 66 Conclusion 109 by Marine Ecoregion 15 PCA 16. Central California 70 Foreword v Discussion and Future 110 Bering Sea Ecoregion 16 PCA 17. Upper Bight of the Californias/Channel Islands/ Acknowledgments vi San Nicolas Island 72 Literature Cited 114 PCA 1. Pribilof Islands 20 Acronym List viii PCA 2. Bristol Bay 22 Southern Californian Pacific Ecoregion 74 Appendices 120 PCA 18. Lower Bight of the Californias/Islas Coronados 80 Appendix 1. Scale of Appropriate Physiographic Aleutian Archipelago Ecoregion 24 Introduction 1 and Oceanographic Features 120 PCA 19. Bahía San Quintín/Bahía El Rosario 82 PCA 3. Western Aleutian Islands/Bowers Bank 28 Overview 2 Appendix 2. Marine Species of Common PCA 20. Isla Guadalupe 84 PCA 4. Unimak Pass/Aleutian Islands 30 Conservation Concern List 121 Goal of the Priority Conservation Areas Project 3 PCA 21. Vizcaíno/Isla Cedros 86 Appendix 3. B2B CD-ROM Data Sets 121 History of the Process 3 Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific Ecoregion 32 PCA 22. Laguna San Ignacio 88 Methodology 4 PCA 5. Western Kodiak Island/Shelikof Strait 38 PCA 23. Bahía Magdalena 90 What is a PCA? 5 PCA 6. Lower Cook Inlet/Eastern Kodiak Island 40 Gulf of California Ecoregion 92 Data Collection 5 PCA 7. Prince William Sound/Copper River Delta 42 PCA 24. Corredor Los Cabos/Loreto 98 Marine Species of Common Conservation Concern 6 PCA 8. Patton Seamounts 44 PCA 25. Alto Golfo de California 100 Data Analysis 6 PCA 9. Glacier Bay/Sitka Sound/Frederick Sound 46 PCA 26. Grandes Islas del Golfo de California/ Benthic Complexity 6 PCA 10. Dixon Entrance/Langara Island/Forrester Island 48 Bahía de Los Ángeles 102 Sea Surface Temperature Frontal Density 7 PCA 11. Northern Queen Charlotte Sound/ PCA 27. Humedales de Sonora, Sinaloa y Nayarit/ Sea Surface Height: Currents, Gyres and Eddies 7 Hecate Strait/Gwaii Haanas 50 Bahía de Banderas 104 Primary Productivity 9 PCA 12. Scott Islands/Queen Charlotte Strait 52 PCA 28. Islas Marías 106 Priority Conservation Areas Workshop/Consensus Mapper 10 Columbian Pacific Ecoregion 54 Mapping Exercises 12 PCA 13. Southern Strait of Georgia/San Juan Islands 60 Exercise One: Thematically Identify Ecologically PCA 14. Barkley Sound/Pacific Coastal Washington 62 Significant Regions 12 PCA 15. Central Oregon/Cape Mendocino 64 Exercise Two: Review and Refine Ecologically Significant Regions 12 Exercise Three: Identify Threats and Opportunities 12 Exercise Four: Identify Priority Conservation Areas 13 iii Table of Contents Executive Summary iv Description of Priority Conservation Areas Montereyan Pacific Transition Ecoregion 66 Conclusion 109 by Marine Ecoregion 15 PCA 16. Central California 70 Foreword v Discussion and Future 110 Bering Sea Ecoregion 16 PCA 17. Upper Bight of the Californias/Channel Islands/ Acknowledgments vi San Nicolas Island 72 Literature Cited 114 PCA 1. Pribilof Islands 20 Acronym List viii PCA 2. Bristol Bay 22 Southern Californian Pacific Ecoregion 74 Appendices 120 PCA 18. Lower Bight of the Californias/Islas Coronados 80 Appendix 1. Scale of Appropriate Physiographic Aleutian Archipelago Ecoregion 24 Introduction 1 and Oceanographic Features 120 PCA 19. Bahía San Quintín/Bahía El Rosario 82 PCA 3. Western Aleutian Islands/Bowers Bank 28 Overview 2 Appendix 2. Marine Species of Common PCA 20. Isla Guadalupe 84 PCA 4. Unimak Pass/Aleutian Islands 30 Conservation Concern List 121 Goal of the Priority Conservation Areas Project 3 PCA 21. Vizcaíno/Isla Cedros 86 Appendix 3. B2B CD-ROM Data Sets 121 History of the Process 3 Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific Ecoregion 32 PCA 22. Laguna San Ignacio 88 Methodology 4 PCA 5. Western Kodiak Island/Shelikof Strait 38 PCA 23. Bahía Magdalena 90 What is a PCA? 5 PCA 6. Lower Cook Inlet/Eastern Kodiak Island 40 Gulf of California Ecoregion 92 Data Collection 5 PCA 7. Prince William Sound/Copper River Delta 42 PCA 24. Corredor Los Cabos/Loreto 98 Marine Species of Common Conservation Concern 6 PCA 8. Patton Seamounts 44 PCA 25. Alto Golfo de California 100 Data Analysis 6 PCA 9. Glacier Bay/Sitka Sound/Frederick Sound 46 PCA 26. Grandes Islas del Golfo de California/ Benthic Complexity 6 PCA 10. Dixon Entrance/Langara Island/Forrester Island 48 Bahía de Los Ángeles 102 Sea Surface Temperature Frontal Density 7 PCA 11. Northern Queen Charlotte Sound/ PCA 27. Humedales de Sonora, Sinaloa y Nayarit/ Sea Surface Height: Currents, Gyres and Eddies 7 Hecate Strait/Gwaii Haanas 50 Bahía de Banderas 104 Primary Productivity 9 PCA 12. Scott Islands/Queen Charlotte Strait 52 PCA 28. Islas Marías 106 Priority Conservation Areas Workshop/Consensus Mapper 10 Columbian Pacific Ecoregion 54 Mapping Exercises 12 PCA 13. Southern Strait of Georgia/San Juan Islands 60 Exercise One: Thematically Identify Ecologically PCA 14. Barkley Sound/Pacific Coastal Washington 62 Significant Regions 12 PCA 15. Central Oregon/Cape Mendocino 64 Exercise Two: Review and Refine Ecologically Significant Regions 12 Exercise Three: Identify Threats and Opportunities 12 Exercise Four: Identify Priority Conservation Areas 13 iii Executive Summary Foreword From the Gulf of California, with its deep canyons, The CEC, by convening and coordinating the North each area are detailed in this report in the section Canada, Mexico and the United States are inextricably nutrient-rich upwellings and high levels of endemism, to American MPA Network (NAMPAN), is developing the “Description of the Priority Conservation Areas by linked by growing economic, social and cultural the 20,000 kilometers of bays, inlets and inland capacity for a network of MPAs to span the jurisdictions Marine Ecoregion,” which places the PCAs within the exchanges; nevertheless, our relationship does not begin drainage systems of the Pacific Northwest and the high of Canada, Mexico and the United States. The aim of geographic context of CEC ecological classifications. or end with these exchanges. For millions of years, productivity of the Bering Sea, the west coast of North NAMPAN is to enhance and strengthen the conser- nature has united North America, influenced the America is home to unique and important shared vation of biodiversity in critical marine habitats These 28 priority conservation areas are those that development of our societies,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • High-Resolution Numerical Modeling of Near-Surface Weather Conditions Over Alaska’S Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait
    High-Resolution Numerical Modeling of Near-Surface Weather Conditions over Alaska’s Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait Peter Q. Olsson Principal Investigator Co-principal Investigators: Haibo Liu Final Report OCS Study MMS 2007-043 October 2009 This study was funded in part by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS) through Cooperative Agreement No. M08AR12675, between MMS, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. High-Resolution Numerical Modeling of Near-Surface Weather Conditions over Alaska’s Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait Peter Q. Olsson Principal Investigator Co-principal Investigators: Haibo Liu Final Report OCS Study MMS 2007-043 October 2009 Contact information Coastal Marine Institute School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks P. O. Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 email: [email protected] phone: 907.474.7208 fax: 907.474.7204 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables...................................................................................................................................ii List of Figures..................................................................................................................................ii Abstract...........................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Select Terrestrial, Freshwater and Marine Conservation Targets/Biodiversity Elements/Features Across Multiple Biological and Spatial Scales
    Standard 7: Select terrestrial, freshwater and marine conservation targets/biodiversity elements/features across multiple biological and spatial scales. [plan] Rationale It is necessary to define a subset of targets that best represent the biodiversity of an ecoregion to focus the assessment. Conservation targets should cover the suite of biological scales (species to communities, ecological systems and other targets), taxa, and ecological characteristics to adequately inform comprehensive biodiversity conservation. Targets should include coarse and fine filter targets. This includes using rare and endangered, wide ranging, migratory and keystone species, rare communities, and all ecological systems and/or ecosystem types, as well as additional targets that are useful in capturing the variety of biodiversity characteristics, scales and ecological processes. Recommended Products ,,,List, and attributes of fine-filter targets such as distribution (local, widespread), conservation status (threatened and endangered), endemic, wide-ranging, rare communities and coarse-filter targets (ecological systems and ecosystems) as well as other types of targets as appropriate. See the Ecoregional Assessment Data Standards 1.0 for required fields. Maps of occurrences of targets throughout the ecoregion. Description of data gaps for specific target groups and geographic areas. GUIDANCE A systematic approach to conservation planning demands that we be explicit about what features of biodiversity we are trying to conserve (Groves 2003). With the goal of conserving the biodiversity of an ecoregion, we need to define a subset of features to work with that will adequately capture that representation and variety. We refer to these features as conservation targets (Redford et al. 2003). Conservation targets are the species, communities, ecological systems 1 and surrogates that we focus our assessments on in order to capture the broad range of biodiversity as best we can.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Are a Conscientious Consumer, You May Look for Sustainable Seafood Labels When Buying Fish Or Ordering Seafood in a Restaurant
    If you are a conscientious consumer, you may look for sustainable seafood labels when buying fish or ordering seafood in a restaurant. You may look for the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label when buying tuna in the grocery store, for example. You may even use the Vancouver Aquarium’s Ocean Wise or Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch apps to tell you which restaurants use eco-certified seafood suppliers. And you may be forgiven for sometimes getting confused. There is such a welter of eco-labelling and recommendation programs for seafood these days – some of them conflicting with each other – that it can be hard for the average consumer to know which to trust, especially given the mislabelling and outright fraud that have been identified by eco-watchdogs like Oceana. Fraser River sockeye? Good, say the MSC and Ocean Wise. Bad, says the Greenpeace red list. B.C. farmed Atlantic salmon? Good, says the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). Bad, say SeaChoice and Ocean Wise. Meanwhile, Seafood Watch puts B.C. farmed Atlantic salmon somewhere in between, with a yellow rating, meaning it is a “good alternative” to other farmed or wild salmon that may not be as sustainable. Karen Wristen of the Living Oceans Society, one of the partners in the SeaChoice program – which last year got out of consumer labelling to focus on working directly with retailers – said SeaChoice and its partner organizations continue to recommend MSC- and ASC-certified products, although they have concerns about both allowing “non-conformities with standards” to remain unresolved. SeaChoice disagrees, for example, with the ASC’s recent certification of B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Point State Marine Conservation Area North Central California Marine Protected Areas (Mpas), Established May 2010
    Salt Point State Marine Conservation Area North Central California Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Established May 2010 Red abalone Blue rockfish Salt Point SMCA (Haliotis rufescens) (Sebastes mystinus) Photo by Brian Owens Photo by CDFW Photo by Kevin Joe Site Overview Photos are representative of the North Central Coast Region and may not be within this MPA. What is an MPA? MPAs are a type of marine managed area (MMA) where marine or estuarine waters are set aside primarily to protect or conserve marine life and associated habitats. California has a coastal network of 124 protected areas designed to help increase the coherence and effectiveness of protecting the state’s marine life, habitats, and ecosystems. The network includes three types of MPA: state marine reserve (SMR), state marine conservation area (SMCA), and state marine park (SMP); one MMA: state marine recreational management area (SMRMA); and special closures. There are 119 MPAs, 5 MMAs and 15 special closures, each with unique boundaries and regulations in the network. Non-consumptive activities, restoration, and permitted scientific research are allowed. What is an SMCA? An SMCA is a type of MPA that protects resources by allowing for only specific types of recreational and/or commercial take to occur. (Area restrictions are defined in Title 14, Section 632(a)(1)(C)). Salt Point SMCA Overview Salt Point SMCA Key Habitats MPA size: 1.84 square miles Beaches: 0.62 miles Depth range: 0 to 226 feet Rocky shores: 4.30 miles Along-shore span (shoreline): 2.40 miles Sand (all depths): 1.14 square miles Rock (all depths): 0.40 square miles Where is Salt Point SMCA? Average Kelp (1989 to 2008): 0.11 square miles Unidentified (all depths): 0.28 square miles Boundaries and Regulations Boundary: This area is bounded by the mean high tide line and straight lines connecting the following points in the order listed: 38° 35.600' N.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Framework
    PART I: An Approach to Biodiversity Conservation Introduction The Hudson River Valley is one of New York State’s most impressive regions, rich in history, and cultural, geological, and biological diversity (Figure 1). At the heart of this region is the Hudson River Estuary, which ranges from saline to fresh water, and pulses daily with four-foot ocean tides. The Hudson River Estuary corridor is one of the most densely populated areas of the country and has long been the fastest growing region of the state. Additionally, it is one of the state’s primary industrial centers. As a result, tremendous pressures have been placed on the health and sustainability of the region’s natural resources. Despite these stresses, it remains highly productive with thousands of species of plants and animals. Because of the diversity and complexity of both the biological resources and the threats that face these resources, partnerships involving landowners, municipalities, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and others must be developed to effectively con- serve biodiversity in the Hudson River Valley. Successful implementation of the strate- gies and actions presented in this report will require a commitment to both developing and sustaining these partnerships. The Hudson River Estuary Biodiversity Program The purpose of the Hudson River Estuary Biodiversity Program is to support the conser- vation, recovery, and sustainable use of the biodiversity of the Hudson River Estuary cor- ridor, especially as it relates to terrestrial ecosystems. The project emphasizes voluntary approaches to biodiversity conservation in the context of local home rule. The broad goals of the program are: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Section 10 and the Habitat Conservation Plan Program David A
    Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Working Papers 2009 Reforming Section 10 and the Habitat Conservation Plan Program David A. Dana Northwestern University School of Law, [email protected] Repository Citation Dana, David A., "Reforming Section 10 and the Habitat Conservation Plan Program" (2009). Faculty Working Papers. Paper 193. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/193 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. DRAFT Reforming Section 10 and the Habitat Conservation Program David A. Dana Northwestern University One of the central dilemmas of the Endangered Species Act is how to foster species conservation and recovery on private land. Much of the habitat thought to be occupied by endangered species is on private land. According to some estimates, more than two thirds of listed endangered species can be found on private land.1 And even in areas where there is substantial federal land that contains critical habitat, the federal land often is part of a patchwork of federal, state, local and purely private holdings. (Importantly, the Act treats state and locally-owned land as private land.) In such cases, any comprehensive recovery plan would need to extend to private land. In theory, the Endangered Species Act powerfully addresses the risks posed to endangered species by private development and other economic activity on private land. Section Nine of the Act prohibits the "taking" of endangered species on private land, and broadly defines "take."2 The Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation implementing Section 9 clearly encompass private development activity that kills or prevents the reproduction of protected species members,3 and the United States Supreme Court upheld 4 that regulation in Sweet Home v.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat Restoration
    Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat Restoration U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-1 May 2017 Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat Restoration Giselle Samonte1, Peter Edwards2, Julia Royster3, Victoria Ramenzoni4, and Summer Morlock5 1 Contractor with Earth Resources Technology, Inc. NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation 1315 East-West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910 2 Contractor with The Baldwin Group, Inc. NOAA National Ocean Service, Office for Coastal Management 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 3 NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 4 Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78412 5 NOAA Budget Office, Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington D.C. 20230 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-1 May 2017 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Benjamin Friedman, Acting NOAA Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Recommended citation: Giselle Samonte, Peter Edwards, Julia Royster, Victoria Ramenzoni, and Summer Morlock. 2017. Socioeconomic Benefits of Habitat Restoration. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OHC-1, 66 p. Copies of this report may be obtained from: Office of Habitat Conservation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1315
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Macrofaunal Structure and Secondary Production in Tropical Estuaries on the Eastern Marine Ecoregion of Brazil
    Benthic macrofaunal structure and secondary production in tropical estuaries on the Eastern Marine Ecoregion of Brazil Lorena B. Bissoli and Angelo F. Bernardino Grupo de Ecologia Bêntica, Department of Oceanography, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitoria, ES, Brazil ABSTRACT Tropical estuaries are highly productive and support diverse benthic assemblages within mangroves and tidal flats habitats. Determining differences and similarities of benthic assemblages within estuarine habitats and between regional ecosystems may provide scientific support for management of those ecosystems. Here we studied three tropical estuaries in the Eastern Marine Ecoregion of Brazil to assess the spatial variability of benthic assemblages from vegetated (mangroves) and unvegetated (tidal flats) habitats. A nested sampling design was used to determine spatial scales of variability in benthic macrofaunal density, biomass and secondary production. Habitat differences in benthic assemblage composition were evident, with mangrove forests being dominated by annelids (Oligochaeta and Capitellidae) whereas peracarid crustaceans were also abundant on tidal flats. Macrofaunal biomass, density and secondary production also differed between habitats and among estuaries. Those differences were related both to the composition of benthic assemblages and to random spatial variability, underscoring the importance of hierarchical sampling in estuarine ecological studies. Given variable levels of human impacts and predicted climate change effects on tropical estuarine
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Nature Conservation in the Pelagic Environment: a Case for Pelagic Marine Protected Areas?
    Marine nature conservation in the pelagic environment: a case for pelagic Marine Protected Areas? Susan Gubbay September 2006 Contents Contents......................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive summary....................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 4 2 The pelagic environment....................................................................................................... 4 2.1 An overview...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Characteristics of the pelagic environment ....................................................................... 5 2.3 Spatial and temporal structure in the pelagic environment ............................................... 6 2.4 Marine life....................................................................................................................... 10 3 Biodiversity conservation in the pelagic environment........................................................ 12 3.1 Environmental concerns.................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Legislation, policy and management tools...................................................................... 15
    [Show full text]
  • First Nations Perspectives on Sea Otter Conservation in British Columbia and Alaska: Insights Into Coupled Human Àocean Systems
    Chapter 11 First Nations Perspectives on Sea Otter Conservation in British Columbia and Alaska: Insights into Coupled Human ÀOcean Systems Anne K. Salomon 1, Kii’iljuus Barb J. Wilson 2, Xanius Elroy White 3, Nick Tanape Sr. 4 and Tom Mexsis Happynook 5 1School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, 2Skidegate, Haida Gwaii, BC, Canada, 3Bella Bella, BC, Canada, 4Nanwalek, AK, USA, 5Uu-a-thluk Council of Ha’wiih, Huu-ay-aht, BC, Canada Sea Otter Conservation. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801402-8.00011-1 © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 301 302 Sea Otter Conservation INTRODUCTION: REGIME SHIFTS AND TRANSFORMATIONS ALONG NORTH AMERICA’S NORTHWEST COAST One of our legends explains that the sea otter was originally a man. While col- lecting chitons he was trapped by an incoming tide. To save himself, he wished to become an otter. His transformation created all otters. Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository (2005) Human interactions with sea otters and kelp forest ecosystems have spanned millennia ( Figure 11.1 ; Rick et al., 2011 ). In fact, archeological evidence suggests that the highly productive kelp forests of the Pacific Rim may have sustained the original coastal ocean migration route of maritime people to the Americas near the end of the Pleistocene ( Erlandson et al., 2007 ). Similarly, many coastal First Nations stories speak of ancestors who came from the sea (Boas, 1932; Brown and Brown, 2009; Guujaaw, 2005; Swanton, 1909). Yet this vast and aqueous “kelp highway,” providing food, tools, trade goods, and safe anchorage for sophisticated watercraft, would have been highly susceptible to overgrazing by sea urchins had it not been FIGURE 11.1 Sea otter pictographs from Kachemak Bay, Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • British Columbia Regional Guide Cat
    National Marine Weather Guide British Columbia Regional Guide Cat. No. En56-240/3-2015E-PDF 978-1-100-25953-6 Terms of Usage Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified. You are asked to: • Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; • Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author organization; and • Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and that the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. Commercial reproduction and distribution is prohibited except with written permission from the author. For more information, please contact Environment Canada’s Inquiry Centre at 1-800-668-6767 (in Canada only) or 819-997-2800 or email to [email protected]. Disclaimer: Her Majesty is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in the reproduced material. Her Majesty shall at all times be indemnified and held harmless against any and all claims whatsoever arising out of negligence or other fault in the use of the information contained in this publication or product. Photo credits Cover Left: Chris Gibbons Cover Center: Chris Gibbons Cover Right: Ed Goski Page I: Ed Goski Page II: top left - Chris Gibbons, top right - Matt MacDonald, bottom - André Besson Page VI: Chris Gibbons Page 1: Chris Gibbons Page 5: Lisa West Page 8: Matt MacDonald Page 13: André Besson Page 15: Chris Gibbons Page 42: Lisa West Page 49: Chris Gibbons Page 119: Lisa West Page 138: Matt MacDonald Page 142: Matt MacDonald Acknowledgments Without the works of Owen Lange, this chapter would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduced Mammals, Vegetation Changes and Seabird Conservation on the Scott Islands, British Columbia, Canada
    Bird Conservation International, page 1 of 11. ª BirdLife International, 2010 doi:10.1017/S0959270910000043 Introduced mammals, vegetation changes and seabird conservation on the Scott Islands, British Columbia, Canada J. MARK HIPFNER, MOIRA J. F. LEMON and MICHAEL S. RODWAY Summary The Scott Islands, British Columbia, Canada, support the largest aggregation of breeding seabirds in the eastern Pacific Ocean south of Alaska. However, large seabird populations were eradicated by American Mink Neovison vison and Raccoons Procyon lotor introduced to Lanz and Cox islands in the 1930s, while the ecological consequences of the introduction of European Rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus to Triangle Island in the 1920s are unknown. We have seen dramatic changes in the vegetation on Triangle Island in recent decades, chiefly a decrease in Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa cover and a concomitant increase in Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis cover. We carried out vegetation surveys at Triangle Island (1989 and 2004) and its nearest neighbour, rabbit-free Sartine Island (1987 and 2006), to test the hypothesis that rabbits have caused these changes. We found, however, that similar changes have occurred at Sartine Island as at Triangle Island over the same time period. Because these two islands support the bulk of the world’s breeding population of Cassin’s Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus, a small seabird that selects grass-covered habitat but avoids tall Salmonberry for nesting, the vegetation changes raise serious concerns for a species that has experienced dramatic population declines in recent years. Restoration of seabird nesting habitat by removing American Mink and Raccoons from Lanz and Cox islands will be vital for long-term seabird conservation in the Scott Islands.
    [Show full text]