DOCSLIB.ORG

2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-62, 73 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act Margaret M. Krahn, Michael J. Ford, William F. Perrin2, Paul R. Wade1, Robyn P. Angliss1, M. Bradley Hanson, Barbara L. Taylor2, Gina M.Ylitalo, Marilyn E. Dahlheim1, John E. Stein, and Robin S. Waples Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 1 Alaska Fisheries Science Center 7600 Sand Point Way Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 2 Southwest Fisheries Science Center 8604 LaJolla Shores Drive LaJolla, California 92037 December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Donald L. Evans, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret), Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov) Copies are also available from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone orders (1-800-553-6847) e-mail orders ([email protected]) ii Table of Contents List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................v List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................vii Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................ix 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Scope and Intent of the Status Review Update...............................................................................1 1.2. History of the Status of Southern Resident Killer Whales .............................................................1 1.2.1. Petition to List—2001...........................................................................................................1 1.2.2. Status Review—2001/2002 ..................................................................................................2 1.2.3. NMFS’s “Not Warranted” Decision under ESA—2002.......................................................2 1.2.4. Legal Challenge in the U.S. District Court—2002 ...............................................................3 1.2.5. Court’s Decision—2003 .......................................................................................................3 1.2.6. BRT Reconvened—2004......................................................................................................4 1.3. Key Questions in ESA Evaluations................................................................................................4 1.3.1. The “Species” Question ........................................................................................................4 1.3.2. The “Extinction Risk” Question ...........................................................................................4 2. Updates on the Biology, Taxonomy, Habitat, Ecology, and Potential Risk Factors for Southern Resident Killer Whales .................................................................................................................................6 2.1. General Killer Whale Biology........................................................................................................6 2.1.1. Identifying Characteristics....................................................................................................6 2.1.2. North Pacific Killer Whale Populations................................................................................6 2.1.3. Feeding Ecology and Food Requirements ............................................................................8 2.1.4. Diving Behavior....................................................................................................................9 2.1.5. Social Structure.....................................................................................................................9 2.1.6. Behavioral and Cultural Diversity ........................................................................................9 2.2. Genetics of Killer Whales ............................................................................................................10 2.2.1. Summary of the 2002 Status Review..................................................................................10 2.2.2. Additional Genetic Information Available to the 2004 BRT..............................................10 2.2.3. Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................15 2.3. Taxonomy of Killer Whales .........................................................................................................16 2.3.1. Current Status......................................................................................................................16 2.3.2. Nomenclature......................................................................................................................18 2.4. Ecology of Southern Resident Killer Whales...............................................................................19 2.4.1. Current Range and Distribution ..........................................................................................19 2.4.2. Population Dynamics..........................................................................................................22 2.5. Potential Risk Factors...................................................................................................................29 2.5.1. Prey Resources....................................................................................................................29 2.5.2. Marine Noise/Disturbance ..................................................................................................33 2.5.3. Disease................................................................................................................................35 2.5.4. Environmental Contaminants..............................................................................................35 2.5.5. Oil Spills .............................................................................................................................37 iii 3. Determination of the Taxon...................................................................................................................38 3.1. Species..........................................................................................................................................38 3.1.1. Arguments for a Single Species..........................................................................................38 3.1.2. Arguments for Multiple Species .........................................................................................38 3.1.3. Conclusions of the BRT on Species....................................................................................39 3.2. Subspecies ....................................................................................................................................39 3.2.1. Evidence for Subspecies Status...........................................................................................39 3.2.2. Conclusions of the 2004 BRT on Subspecies .....................................................................40 4. Determination of DPS............................................................................................................................42 4.1. Taxonomic Uncertainty................................................................................................................42
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)
    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report
    Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Jeff Hogle and Ken Lujan collecting genetic and fish health samples in Eagle Creek, Oregon. Photo Credit: Maureen Kavanagh Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Prepared by: Maureen Kavanagh, William R. Brignon and Doug Olson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Hatchery Assessment Team Vancouver, WA 98683 -and- Susan Gutenberger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center Willard, WA 98605 -and- Andrew Matala and William Ardren U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abernathy Fish Technology Center Applied Research Program in Conservation Genetics Longview, WA 98632 July 23, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 Geographic Area ................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Background Information on Winter Steelhead in the Clackamas River & Eagle Creek ....................... 13 5.0 Methods ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Acipenser Brevirostrum
    AR-405 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration November 1, 2010 Acknowledgements i The biological review of shortnose sturgeon was conducted by a team of scientists from state and Federal natural resource agencies that manage and conduct research on shortnose sturgeon along their range of the United States east coast. This review was dependent on the expertise of this status review team and from information obtained from scientific literature and data provided by various other state and Federal agencies and individuals. In addition to the biologists who contributed to this report (noted below), the Shortnose Stugeon Status Review Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mary Colligan, Julie Crocker, Michael Dadswell, Kim Damon-Randall, Michael Erwin, Amanda Frick, Jeff Guyon, Robert Hoffman, Kristen Koyama, Christine Lipsky, Sarah Laporte, Sean McDermott, Steve Mierzykowski, Wesley Patrick, Pat Scida, Tim Sheehan, and Mary Tshikaya. The Status Review Team would also like to thank the peer reviewers, Dr. Mark Bain, Dr. Matthew Litvak, Dr. David Secor, and Dr. John Waldman for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, the SRT is indebted to Jessica Pruden who greatly assisted the team in finding the energy to finalize the review – her continued support and encouragement was invaluable. Due to some of the similarities between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon life history strategies, this document includes text that was taken directly from the 2007 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Report (ASSRT 2007), with consent from the authors, to expedite the writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Marine Reserves for Inshore Fisheries
    Managing fisheries without restricting catch or effort : the use of marine reserves for inshore fisheries Daniel S. Holland11[a]1 Department of Environmental & Resource Economics University of Rhode Island Abstract Although widely accepted, management systems that directly restrict catch or effort are neither efficient nor desirable for many fisheries, and have failed to conserve fishery stocks in many cases. Fisheries scientists have suggested that closing part of the fishery with marine reserves may sustain or increase harvest. These marine reserves act as natural hatcheries and nurseries in which reproduction and growth are not impeded, and supplement the surrounding fishery. Empirical studies of marine reserves have focused on the conservation benefits only inside the reserves. I develop a dynamic model and numerical simulation of a fishery for which a marine reserve is introduced. Net present value of fish harvests are maximized as a function of reserve size with total effort assumed constant. Unlike previous models, the time path of harvests and fish stocks prior to reaching a new steady-state is determined. This is important because the full impact of the reserve may not be realized for several years. The model suggests that reserves may increase the net present value of the fishery when total effort is high and can not be regulated directly. Higher discount rates reduce the optimal size of reserves. Introduction Conventional methods of regulating commercial fisheries including licenses, catch quotas, taxes on catch or effort, gear restrictions and closed seasons restrict catch by limiting either the quantity or efficiency of fishing effort, or by putting direct limits on total catch (Cunningham 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • International Conference
    ICCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE On Coastal Ecosystems Towards and Integrated Knowledge for an Ecosystem Approach for Fisheries PROGRAM / ABSTRACT June 26 - 29, 2006 Campeche, Campeche. Mexico ORGANIZING COMMITTEE J. RAMOS MIRANDA. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) A. SOSA LOPEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) D. FLORES HERNANDEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) N. ACUÑA GONAZALEZ. DGPI-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) J. A. SANCHEZ CHAVEZ. DGPI-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) F. ARREGUIN SANCHEZ. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas IPN (Mexico) J. C. SEIJO. Universidad Marista de Mérida (Mexico) S. SALAS MARQUEZ. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Avanzados IPN (Mexico) L. A. AYALA PEREZ. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana – Xochimilco (Mexico) G. COMPEAN JIMENEZ. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) R. SOLANA SANSORES. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) A. WAKIDA KUZONOKI. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) R. G. OCHOA PEÑA. Secretaría de Pesca, Gobierno del Estado de Campeche (Mexico) T. DO CHI. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) R. LAE. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) G. VIDY. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE J. RAMOS MIRANDA. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) D. FLORES HERNANDEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) T. DO CHI. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires, CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) D. MOUILLOT. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires, CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) R. LAE. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) J J ALBARET. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) F. ARREGUIN SANCHEZ. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas IPN (Mexico) R.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework
    Review Draft Review Draft Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework Prepared for The Northwest Power & Conservation Council February 2013 Review Draft PREFACE This document was prepared at the direction of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to address comments by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) in their 2010 review of Bonneville Power Administration research, monitoring, and evaluation projects regarding sturgeon in the lower Columbia River. The ISRP provided a favorable review of specific sturgeon projects but noted that an effective basin-wide management plan for white sturgeon is lacking and is the most important need for planning future research and restoration. The Council recommended that a comprehensive sturgeon management plan be developed through a collaborative effort involving currently funded projects. Hatchery planning projects by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (2007-155-00) and the Yakama Nation (2008-455-00) were specifically tasked with leading or assisting with the comprehensive management plan. The lower Columbia sturgeon monitoring and mitigation project (1986-050-00) sponsored by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Inter-Tribal Fish Commission also agreed to collaborate on this effort and work with the Council on the plan. The Council directed that scope of the planning area include from the mouth of the Columbia upstream to Priest Rapids on the mainstem and up to Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River. The plan was also to include summary information for sturgeon areas above Priest Rapids and Lower Granite. A planning group was convened of representatives of the designated projects. Development also involved collaboration with representatives of other agencies and tribes involved in related sturgeon projects throughout the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology for Assessing the Vulnerability of Marine Fish and Shellfish Species to a Changing Climate
    Methodology for Assessing the Vulnerability of Marine Fish and Shellfish Species to a Changing Climate Wendy E. Morrison, Mark W. Nelson, Jennifer F. Howard, Eric J. Teeters, Jonathan A. Hare, Roger B. Griffis, James D. Scott, and Michael A. Alexander U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-3 October 2015 Methodology for Assessing the Vulnerability of Marine Fish and Shellfish Species to a Changing Climate Wendy E. Morrison1, Mark W. Nelson1, Jennifer F. Howard2, Eric J. Teeters1, Jonathan A. Hare3, Roger B. Griffis4, James D. Scott5,6, and Michael A. Alexander6 1Earth Resources Technology, Inc. Under contract to NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 2Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 3NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 28 Tarzwell Dr., Narrangansett, RI 02882 4NOAA ,National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 5Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 216 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309 6NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80305 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-3 October 2015 U.S. Department of Commerce Penny S. Pritzker, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan, Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Recommended citation: Morrison, W.E., M. W. Nelson, J. F. Howard, E. J. Teeters, J. A. Hare, R. B. Griffis, J.D. Scott, and M.A. Alexander. 2015. Methodology for Assessing the Vulnerability of Marine Fish and Shellfish Species to a Changing Climate.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Economics of Harvesting Age-​Structured Fish Populations
    On the economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations* Olli Tahvonen∗∗ Fishery and Environmental Management Group, FEM University of Helsinki, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences November 2007 Abstract A generic discrete time age-structured population model is integrated with fishery economics to derive analytical results for maximizing present value re- turns net of effort cost. The simplest case is obtained by assuming two age classes. Given knife-edge selectivity and no harvesting cost, the optimal steady state is a unique (local) saddle point. When fishing gear is nonselective, optimal harvesting may converge toward a stationary cycle that represents pulse fish- ing. Optimal steady states differ from those obtained by the aggregate biomass models. This implies that optimal extinction results depend on age structured information. Given a low rate of interest and knife-edge selectivity, the optimal harvesting is shown to converge toward a unique (local) saddle point indepen- dently of the number of age classes. Keywords: Fishery economics, optimal harvesting, age-structured popula- tions This paper has been presented in International Workshop on Structured Models∗ in Population and Economics Dynamics, Vienna November, 2007. Permanent address: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Unioninkatu 40 A, 00170∗∗ Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: olli.tahvonen@metla.fi 1 1 Introduction Optimal harvesting of biologically renewable populations (such as fish and trees) is among the classical problems of resource economics. One line of research that dates back to Baranov (1918) aims to utilize information on the population age-structure in searching desirable levels of harvesting effort, or as is possible in some cases, the age class to which the harvesting activity should be targeted.
    [Show full text]
  • Recruitment and the Local Dynamics of Open Marine Populations
    September 20, 1996 21:12 Annual Reviews CALECHPT.BAK AR19-16 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1996. 27:477–500 Copyright c 1996 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved RECRUITMENT AND THE LOCAL DYNAMICS OF OPEN MARINE POPULATIONS M. J. Caley1, M. H. Carr2, M. A. Hixon3, T. P. Hughes1,G.P. Jones1, and B. A. Menge3 1Department of Marine Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia; 2Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA; 3Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2914, USA; (Authorship is alphabetical.) KEY WORDS: benthic invertebrates, density dependence, limitation, population dynamics, reef fishes, regulation, settlement ABSTRACT The majority of marine populations are demographically open; their replenish- ment is largely or exclusively dependent on a supply of juveniles from the plank- ton. In spite of much recent research, no consensus has yet been reached regarding the importance of recruitment relative to other demographic processes in deter- mining local population densities. We argue 1. that demographic theory suggests that, except under restrictive and unlikely conditions, recruitment must influence local population density to some extent. Therefore, 2. the question as to whether the size of a particular population is limited by recruitment is misguided. Finally, 3. the effect of recruitment on population size can be difficult to detect but is nonetheless real. A major weakness of most existing studies is a lack of attention by University of North Carolina - Wilmington on 08/03/09. For personal use only. to the survival of recruits over appropriate scales of time and space. Acknowl- Annu.
    [Show full text]
  • Forty-Second Annual Report (1991)
    OFFICE COPY ONLY FORTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE P.O. Box 726 Ocean Springs, MS 39564 (601} 875-5912 The GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION is an organization of the five States, whose coastal waters are the Gulf of Mexico. This Compact, authorized under Public Law 81-66, was signed by the representatives of the Governors of the five Gulf States on July 16, 1949, at Mobile, Alabama. It has as its principal objective the conservation, development and full utilization of the fishery resources of the Gulf of Mexico, to provide food, employment, income and recreation to the people of these United States. GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FORTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT (1991) To the CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES And to the GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATORS of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas Presented in compliance with the terms of the Compact and the State enabling Acts creating such Commission and Public Law 66 - 81st Congress assenting thereto GULF STA TES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION P.O. Box 726 Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 (601) 875-5912 ACKNOWLEDGMENT In submitting this Forty-second Annual Report, the Commissioners wish to express their most sincere appreciation for the splendid cooperation of the Members of Congress and the Governors and Legislators of the Compact States. The Commission fully appreciates that such measure of success as has been attained in the past forty-two years could not have been possible without such valued assistance. This acknowledgment is also extended to the directorates and staffs of federal, state and interstate agencies, and to representatives of all organizations and individuals who have contributed toward the realization of the objectives of the GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION.
    [Show full text]
  • Eulachon (Thaleichthys Pacificus) Marine Ecology: Applying Ocean Ecosystem Indicators from Salmon to Develop a Multi-Year Model of Freshwater Abundance
    Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) marine ecology: applying ocean ecosystem indicators from salmon to develop a multi-year model of freshwater abundance Sarah A. Montgomery A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Affairs University of Washington 2020 Committee: Cleo Woelfle-Erskine Robert Anderson Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Marine and Environmental Affairs © Copyright 2020 Sarah A. Montgomery Abstract Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) marine ecology: applying ocean ecosystem indicators from salmon to develop a multi-year model of freshwater abundance Sarah A. Montgomery Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Dr. Cleo Woelfle-Erskine School of Marine and Environmental Affairs Complex ecological processes determine whether and how fish species survive in the ocean. For some fishes such as Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), these processes are thoroughly studied and modeled. For eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), however, these processes are more mysterious despite their trophic link to salmon and similar anadromous life history. The ocean ecology of eulachon was identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a key knowledge gap and research priority for eulachon, which were listed under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species in 2010 after suffering significant declines throughout the southern portion of their range. Eulachon are a culturally and historically important species for Native nations, as well as a critical component of freshwater, estuarine, and marine food webs. So, a decline in their abundance has motivated researchers to better understand what drives fluctuations in their populations, despite a lack of data in the marine environment. The marine ecology of eulachon may be relatively understudied, but data collected and compiled for salmon can partially fill this gap.
    [Show full text]
  • Squalus Acanthias)
    REVIEW OF THE INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
    [Show full text]