DOCSLIB.ORG

Kittlitz's Murrelets Diverged About 1.6 MYBP (Friesen Et Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kittlitz's Murrelets Diverged About 1.6 MYBP (Friesen Et Al BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME PETITION TO LIST THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET (BRACHYRAMPHUS BREVIROSTRIS) AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ALASKA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, AS §§ 16.20.180 - 210 © Glen Tepke (www.pbase.com/gtepke) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY March 5, 2009 NOTICE OF PETITION________________________________________________________ Denby S. Lloyd, Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game PO Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Phone: (907) 465-4100 Fax: (907) 465-2332 PETITIONERS The Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 100599 Anchorage, AK 99510-0599 Phone: (907) 274-1110 Fax: (907) 258-6177 [email protected] __________________________ Shaye Wolf, Ph.D. Natalie Dawson, Ph.D. Rebecca Noblin, J.D. Center for Biological Diversity Submitted on the 5th of March 2009 The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) formally request that the Commissioner list the Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) as an endangered species under the Alaska Endangered Species Act, AS §§ 16.20.180 - 210. This petition is filed in accordance with AS § 44.62.220. The best available scientific data documents that the Kittlitz’s murrelet is a species whose “numbers have decreased to such an extent as to indicate that its continued existence is threatened,” and that the Commissioner must therefore determine that it is an endangered species pursuant to AS § 16.20.190. The Center therefore formally request, pursuant to AS § 44.62.220, that the Commissioner publish regulations that declare the Kittlitz’s murrelet to be an endangered species and add it to the list of species published at 5 AAC § 93.020. Under AS § 44.62.230, the Commissioner must, within 30 days of the day of this petition, either deny the petition in writing, or schedule a public hearing on the requested action under AS §§ 44.62.190 – 44.62.215. Petitioners look forward to the Commissioner’s response. The Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, Petition to List the Kittlitz’s Murrelet as an Endangered Species Page ii policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 40,000 members in Alaska and throughout the United States. The Center submits this petition on its own behalf and on behalf of its members and staff in Alaska and elsewhere with an interest in protecting the Kittlitz’s murrelet and its habitat. Petition to List the Kittlitz’s Murrelet as an Endangered Species Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 I. NATURAL HISTORY AND BIOLOGY OF THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET............... 3 A. SPECIES DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................... 3 B. TAXONOMY ............................................................................................................................ 3 C. RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................................... 4 1. Summer Distribution........................................................................................................ 5 2. Winter Distribution .......................................................................................................... 8 D. HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................... 8 1. Nesting Habitat.................................................................................................................. 9 2. At-sea Foraging Habitat................................................................................................. 10 E. DIET AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR......................................................................................... 13 1. Diet ................................................................................................................................... 13 2. Foraging Behavior .......................................................................................................... 14 F. VOCALIZATIONS................................................................................................................... 15 G. REPRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 15 H. DEMOGRAPHIC RATES ........................................................................................................ 16 II. POPULATION STATUS ...................................................................................................... 18 A. HISTORIC ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES.................................................................................... 18 B. CURRENT ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES AND POPULATION TRENDS ........................................ 19 1. Global Population Estimates.......................................................................................... 19 2. Regional Population Estimates ...................................................................................... 21 3. Population Trends........................................................................................................... 22 III. THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR LISTING UNDER THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ....................................................................... 26 A. DESTRUCTION, DRASTIC MODIFICATION, OR SEVERE CURTAILMENT OF THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET’S HABITAT ............................................................................................................. 26 1. Marine Oil Pollution....................................................................................................... 26 a. Acute oil spills.............................................................................................................. 27 b. Chronic oil pollution................................................................................................... 28 c. Offshore oil and gas exploration and development.................................................. 29 d. Other marine pollution............................................................................................... 31 2. Global Warming.............................................................................................................. 33 a. The climate system, greenhouse gas concentrations, the greenhouse effect, global warming, and ecological impacts.............................................................................. 33 b. Climate and environmental changes observed to date............................................ 37 c. Projected climate and environmental changes......................................................... 46 d. Impacts to the Kittlitz’s murrelet from global warming ........................................ 50 3. Ocean Acidification......................................................................................................... 53 B. OTHER NATURAL OR MANMADE FACTORS AFFECTING THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET...... 57 1. Small Population Size ..................................................................................................... 57 2. Commercial Fisheries ..................................................................................................... 58 Petition to List the Kittlitz’s Murrelet as an Endangered Species Page iv a. Gillnet bycatch mortality ........................................................................................... 58 b. Other fisheries interactions........................................................................................ 61 3. Ocean Climate Regime Shifts ........................................................................................ 61 4. Human Disturbance........................................................................................................ 62 a. Vessel activity .............................................................................................................. 62 b. Human disturbance to nesting areas ........................................................................ 65 C. DISEASE OR PREDATION...................................................................................................... 66 D. OVERUTILIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL OR SPORTING PURPOSES ..................................... 66 IV. EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS ARE INADEQUATE ............................ 66 A. REGULATORY MECHANISMS ADDRESSING GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTION AND GLOBAL WARMING ARE INADEQUATE.............................................................................................. 66 B. REGULATORY MECHANISMS ADDRESSING OTHER THREATS TO THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET ARE INADEQUATE............................................................................................. 72 V. CRITICAL HABITAT SHOULD BE DESIGNATED FOR THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET ............................................................................................................................... 74 VI. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 74 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 75 Petition to List the Kittlitz’s Murrelet as an Endangered Species Page v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kittlitz’s murrelet, Brachyramphus brevirostris, is a small seabird in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Region Revised 2020
    Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History Repatriation Office Case Report Summaries Alaska Region Revised 2020 Alaska Alutiiq, Koniag, 1991 LARSEN BAY, KODIAK ISLAND Yu'pik In September 1991, the NMNH repatriated the human remains of approximately 1000 individuals from the Uyak (KOD-145) archaeological site to the Alaska Native village of Larsen Bay, and 144 funerary objects were repatriated in January 1992. The museum had received a request to repatriate these remains and artifacts in 1987, and a series of communications between the village and the Smithsonian resulted in the decision to repatriate the remains as culturally affiliated with the present day people of Larsen Bay. The burials had been excavated by a Smithsonian curator, Ales Hrdlicka, during a series of excavations in the 1930s, and dated from around 1000 B.C. to post-contact times. No report is available, but information on the site and the repatriation may be found in the following book: Reckoning With the Dead: the Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution. Edited by Tamara L. Bray and Thomas W. Killion. Published in 1994 by the Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Alaska Inupiat, Yu'pik, 1994 INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS AND NANA Regional ASSOCIATED FUNERARY OBJECTS FROM NORTHEAST NORTON Corporation SOUND, BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPORATION, ALASKA IN THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY This report provides a partial inventory and assessment of the cultural affiliation of the human remains and funerary objects in the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) from within the territorial boundaries of the Bering Strait Native Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • North Pacific Research Board Project Final Report
    NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD PROJECT FINAL REPORT Synthesis of Marine Biology and Oceanography of Southeast Alaska NPRB Project 406 Final Report Ginny L. Eckert1, Tom Weingartner2, Lisa Eisner3, Jan Straley4, Gordon Kruse5, and John Piatt6 1 Biology Program, University of Alaska Southeast, and School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 11120 Glacier Hwy., Juneau, AK 99801, (907) 796-6450, [email protected] 2 Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, P.O. Box 757220, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220, (907) 474-7993, [email protected] 3 Auke Bay Lab, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 17109 Pt. Lena Loop Rd., Juneau, AK 99801, (907) 789-6602, [email protected] 4 University of Alaska Southeast, 1332 Seward Ave., Sitka, AK 99835, (907) 774-7779, [email protected] 5 School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 11120 Glacier Hwy., Juneau, AK 99801, (907) 796-2052, [email protected] 6 Alaska Science Center, US Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, 360-774-0516, [email protected] August 2007 ABSTRACT This project directly responds to NPRB specific project needs, “Bring Southeast Alaska scientific background up to the status of other Alaskan waters by completing a synthesis of biological and oceanographic information”. This project successfully convened a workshop on March 30-31, 2005 at the University of Alaska Southeast to bring together representatives from different marine science disciplines and organizations to synthesize information on the marine biology and oceanography of Southeast Alaska. Thirty-eight individuals participated, including representatives of the University of Alaska and state and national agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Nome, Alaska
    Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Nome, Alaska December 2019 This page left blank intentionally. Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Nome, Alaska Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District December 2019 This page left blank intentionally. Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This General Investigations study is being conducted under authority granted by Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, which authorizes a study of the feasibility for development of navigation improvements in various harbors and rivers in Alaska. This study is also utilizing the authority of Section 2006 of WRDA, 2007, Remote and Subsistence Harbors, as modified by Section 2104 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) and further modified by Section 1105 of WRDA 2016. Section 2006 states that the Secretary may recommend a project without demonstrating that the improvements are justified solely by National Economic Development (NED) benefits, if the Secretary determines that the improvements meet specific criteria detailed in the authority. Additionally, Section 1202(c)(3) of WRDA 2016 “Additional Studies, Arctic Deep Draft Port Development Partnerships” allows for the consideration of transportation cost savings benefits to national security. The proposed port modifications intend to improve navigation efficiency to reduce the costs of commodities critical to the viability of communities in the region. This study has been cost-shared, with 50 % of the study funding provided by the non-Federal sponsor, which is the City of Nome, per the Federal Cost Share Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Steve Mccutcheon Collection, B1990.014
    REFERENCE CODE: AkAMH REPOSITORY NAME: Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center Bob and Evangeline Atwood Alaska Resource Center 625 C Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 907-929-9235 Fax: 907-929-9233 Email: [email protected] Guide prepared by: Sara Piasecki, Archivist TITLE: Steve McCutcheon Collection COLLECTION NUMBER: B1990.014 OVERVIEW OF THE COLLECTION Dates: circa 1890-1990 Extent: approximately 180 linear feet Language and Scripts: The collection is in English. Name of creator(s): Steve McCutcheon, P.S. Hunt, Sydney Laurence, Lomen Brothers, Don C. Knudsen, Dolores Roguszka, Phyllis Mithassel, Alyeska Pipeline Services Co., Frank Flavin, Jim Cacia, Randy Smith, Don Horter Administrative/Biographical History: Stephen Douglas McCutcheon was born in the small town of Cordova, AK, in 1911, just three years after the first city lots were sold at auction. In 1915, the family relocated to Anchorage, which was then just a tent city thrown up to house workers on the Alaska Railroad. McCutcheon began taking photographs as a young boy, but it wasn’t until he found himself in the small town of Curry, AK, working as a night roundhouse foreman for the railroad that he set out to teach himself the art and science of photography. As a Deputy U.S. Marshall in Valdez in 1940-1941, McCutcheon honed his skills as an evidential photographer; as assistant commissioner in the state’s new Dept. of Labor, McCutcheon documented the cannery industry in Unalaska. From 1942 to 1944, he worked as district manager for the federal Office of Price Administration in Fairbanks, taking photographs of trading stations, communities and residents of northern Alaska; he sent an album of these photos to Washington, D.C., “to show them,” he said, “that things that applied in the South 48 didn’t necessarily apply to Alaska.” 1 1 Emanuel, Richard P.
    [Show full text]
  • MS Watersheds 12 Digit Shapefile
    MS Watersheds 12 Digit Shapefile Tags 16-digit, Hydrologic Unit Code, Region, US, 4-digit, HUC, United States, Watershed Boundary Dataset, 2-digit, Basin, 10-digit, Hydrologic Units, Sub-basin, Watershed, WBD, 6-digit, inlandWaters, Sub-region, Subwatershed, 12-digit, 14-digit, 8-digit Summary The intent of defining Hydrologic Units (HU) within the Watershed Boundary Dataset is to establish a base-line drainage boundary framework, accounting for all land and surface areas. Hydrologic units are intended to be used as a tool for water-resource management and planning activities particularly for site-specific and localized studies requiring a level of detail provided by large-scale map information. The WBD complements the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and supports numerous programmatic missions and activities including: watershed management, rehabilitation and enhancement, aquatic species conservation strategies, flood plain management and flood prevention, water-quality initiatives and programs, dam safety programs, fire assessment and management, resource inventory and assessment, water data analysis and water census. **** NOTE - MARIS Staff created a Mississippi collection from various regions in January 2019 **** Description The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. It defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point except in coastal or lake front areas where there could be multiple outlets as stated by the "Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)" “Standard” (http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11/a3/). Watershed boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative boundaries or special projects, nor particular program or agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Ocean: Supplementary Materials
    CHAPTER S10 Pacific Ocean: Supplementary Materials FIGURE S10.1 Pacific Ocean: mean surface geostrophic circulation with the current systems described in this text. Mean surface height (cm) relative to a zero global mean height, based on surface drifters, satellite altimetry, and hydrographic data. (NGCUC ¼ New Guinea Coastal Undercurrent and SECC ¼ South Equatorial Countercurrent). Data from Niiler, Maximenko, and McWilliams (2003). 1 2 S10. PACIFIC OCEAN: SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS À FIGURE S10.2 Annual mean winds. (a) Wind stress (N/m2) (vectors) and wind-stress curl (Â10 7 N/m3) (color), multiplied by À1 in the Southern Hemisphere. (b) Sverdrup transport (Sv), where blue is clockwise and yellow-red is counterclockwise circulation. Data from NCEP reanalysis (Kalnay et al.,1996). S10. PACIFIC OCEAN: SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS 3 (a) STFZ SAFZ PF 0 100 5.5 17 200 18 16 6 5 4 9 4.5 13 12 15 14 Potential 300 11 10 temperature Depth (m) 6.5 400 9 (°C) 8 7 3.5 500 8 Subtropical Domain Transition Zone Subarctic Domain Alaskan STFZ SAFZ Stream (b) 0 35.2 34.6 34 33 32.7 32.8 100 33.7 33.8 200 34.5 34.3 300 34 34.2 33.9 Depth (m) 34.1 400 34 34.1 Salinity 500 (c) 30°N 40°N 50°N 0 100 2 1 4 8 6 200 10 20 12 14 16 44 25 44 30 300 12 14 35 Depth (m) 16 400 20 40 Nitrate (μmol/kg) 500 (d) 30°NLatitude 40°N 50°N 24.0 Sea surface density Nitrate (μmol/kg) 24.5 θ σ 25.0 1 2 25.5 1 10 2 4 12 8 26.0 14 Potential density 10 12 16 16 26.5 20 25 30 40 35 27.0 30°N 40°N 50°N FIGURE S10.3 The subtropical-subarctic transition along 150 W in the central North Pacific (MayeJune, 1984).
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Bering Sea – Northern Part NOAA Chart 514
    BookletChart™ Bering Sea – Northern Part NOAA Chart 514 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Published by the extends NW from Unimak Pass and passes to the SW of the Pribilof Islands. Depths vary more or less uniformly in the open sea except near National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the off-lying islands, which are volcanic and rocky and range in height to National Ocean Service more than 2,000 feet. Office of Coast Survey From the head of Bristol Bay to Norton Sound, shoals or banks formed by river deposits extend many miles from the mainland, in some places www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov completely out of sight. Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers are the principal 888-990-NOAA drainage systems along this stretch of coast. As fog and thick weather are common during the navigation season, coasting vessels are advised What are Nautical Charts? to sound constantly and to stay in depths greater than 10 fathoms unless feeling their way in to the land. Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show Navigational aids are few, and all are seasonal. The rocky islands and the water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much rocky parts of the mainland are frequented by thousands of birds whose more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and constant cries may serve to indicate the approach to these places in efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial thick weather. Port facilities are rare, and most of the villages scattered ships that carry America’s commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporal Changes in Abundance of Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena
    242 Abstract—Abundance of harbor por- Temporal changes in abundance of harbor poise (Phocoena phocoena) was es- timated from data collected during porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) inhabiting the vessel surveys conducted through- out the inland waters of Southeast inland waters of Southeast Alaska Alaska. Line-transect methods were used during 18 seasonal surveys Marilyn E. Dahlheim (contact author)1 spanning 22 years (1991–2012). Es- 1, 2 timates were derived from summer Alexandre N. Zerbini surveys only because of the broader Janice M. Waite1 spatial coverage and greater number Amy S. Kennedy1 of surveys during this season than during other seasons. Porpoise abun- Email address for contact author: [email protected] dance varied when different periods were compared (i.e., 1991–1993, 1 2006–2007, and 2010–2012); how- National Marine Mammal Laboratory ever, persistent areas of high por- Alaska Fisheries Science Center poise densities occurred in Glacier National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Bay and Icy Strait, and off the town 7600 Sand Point Way NE of Wrangell and Zarembo Island. Seattle, Washington 98115-6349 Overall abundance of harbor por- 2 Cascadia Research Collective poise significantly declined from the 218 ½ West Fourth Avenue early 1990s (N=1076, 95% confidence Olympia, Washington 98501 interval [CI]=910–1272) to the mid- 2000s (N=604, 95% CI=468–780). This downward trend was followed by a significant increase in the early 2010s (N=975, 95% CI=857–1109) when abundance rose to levels simi- Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) the Southeast Alaska stock—occur- lar to those observed 20 years ear- are distributed throughout Alaska ring from Dixon Entrance (54°30′N; lier.
    [Show full text]
  • WP18–27 Executive Summary
    WP18–27 Executive Summary General Description Proposal WP18–27 requests the Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to recognize the customary and traditional uses of muskoxen on Nunivak Island by the residents of Nunivak Island. Submitted by: Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta Subsistence Regional Advisory Council. Customary and Traditional Use Determination—Muskoxen Proposed Regulation Unit 18—Nunivak Island Residents of Nunivak Island. Unit 18—Remainder No Federal subsistence priority. OSM Preliminary Conclusion Support Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Southcentral Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Kodiak/Aleutians Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Bristol Bay Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Western Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council WP18–27 Executive Summary Recommendation Seward Peninsula Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Northwest Arctic Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Eastern Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation North Slope Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Interagency Staff Committee Comments ADF&G Comments Written Public Comments None 2 DRAFT STAFF ANALYSIS WP18-27 ISSUES Proposal WP18-27, submitted by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (Council), requests the Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to recognize the customary and traditional
    [Show full text]
  • By S.M. Karl and R.D. Koch
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-197C C U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAPS AND PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATION OF ANOMALOUS ROCK GEOCHEMICAL DATA FROM THE PETERSBURG QUADRANGLE, AND PARTS OF THE PORT ALEXANDER, SITKA, AND SUMDUM QUADRANGLES, SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA By S.M. Karl and R.D. Koch INTRODUCTION flysch, volcanic rocks, and melange that includes fault- bounded blocks of older sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Statistical analyses of minor- and trace-element The eastern part of the study area comprises the geochemical data for 6,974 rock samples from the Mainland belt of Brew and others (1984), which include" Petersburg quadrangle and minor parts of the Port the Taku and Tracy Arm terranes of Berg and others Alexander, Sitka, and Sumdum quadrangles (hereafter (1978). According to Brew and others (1984), rocks of referred to as the Petersburg study area) identified 887 the Taku and Tracy Arm terranes may include samples with anomalously high concentrations of one or metamorphosed equivalents of the Alexander terrane more elements. This report includes a list of the 887 rocks. The country rocks of the Mainland belt increase samples (table 1), histograms showing the distribution of in metamorphic grade from west to east, to as high as chemical values (see fig. 2), a brief description of the amphibolite facies, and are intruded by various igneous geologic context and distribution of the samples, a map components of the Coast plutonic-metamorphic complex of bedrock geochemical groups (sheet 1), and 12 maps of Brew and Ford (1984) (sheet 1). showing the locations of samples that have anomalous The Coast plutonic-metamorphic complex includes amounts of precious metals, base metals, and selected rare the metamorphosed equivalents of the Paleozoic and metals (sheets 2-7).
    [Show full text]
  • NOUS41 KWBC 301951 Service Change Notice 13-36 National
    NOUS41 KWBC 301951 Service Change Notice 13-36 National Weather Service Headquarters Washington DC 351 PM EDT Thu May 30 2013 To: Subscribers: -Family of Services -NOAA Weather Wire Service -Emergency Managers Weather Information Network -NOAAPORT Other NWS partners and NWS employees From: Mark Tew Chief, Marine and Coastal Weather Services Branch Subject: Changes to Coastal Marine Zones in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea Effective October 1, 2013 Effective Tuesday, October 1, 2013, at 10 AM Alaska Daylight Time (AKDT), 2 PM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), 1800 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), the NWS Weather Forecast Office (WFO) in Anchorage, AK (AFC) will reconfigure its marine zones for the coastal waters in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. The changes include renaming, renumbering and realigning several zones as well as adding eight new forecast zones. Several zone changes will be in name only while the zone number remains the same. The purpose of this change is to improve marine weather services for NWS users and partners. Table 1 lists all the products issued by WFO Anchorage that will be affected by the marine zone changes. Table 2 lists all the current marine zones and Universal Geographic Codes (UGCs) for WFO Anchorage. Table 3 lists all the marine zones and UGCs for which WFO Anchorage will issue forecasts and warnings effective October 1, 2013. Table 1: WFO Anchorage products affected by the marine zone changes effective October 1 2013. Product Name WMO Heading AWIPS ID ------------ ----------- -------- Coastal Waters Forecast
    [Show full text]
  • INTERANNUAL VARIATIONS in ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS in the GULF of ALASKA, and COVARIATION with CALIFORNIA CURRENT ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS Iiichaiw I)
    BRODEUR ET AL.: VARIABILITY IN ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS CalCOFl Rep., Vol. 37, 1996 INTERANNUAL VARIATIONS IN ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS IN THE GULF OF ALASKA, AND COVARIATION WITH CALIFORNIA CURRENT ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS IiICHAIW I). Ul1OIlEUK UliUCE W. FllOST STEVEN R.HAKE Alaska Fihrirs Science Criicrr, NOAA Sc.hool of Ocranograpliy Intcriintioii~l1'~ciiic tfhbiit <:omtiiii\ion 7600 Sand Point Wq NE 1301 357WJ V.0. Box 95009 Sr'lttle, W.lshlllgton '181 15 Uiii\ cr\ii). of W.i\hingtmi ScJttlr, W'lstlltl~t~~n981 45 Se'lttlr. Washln~on981 95 ABSTRACT tinguish their relative contributions (Wickett 1967; Large-scale atmospheric and oceanographic condi- Chelton et al. 1982; Roessler aiid Chelton 1987). tions affect the productivity of oceanic ecosystems both It has become increasingly apparent that atmospheric locally and at some distance froin the forcing mecha- and oceanic conditions are likely to change due to a nism. Recent studies have suggested that both the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Graham Subarctic Domain of the North Pacific Ocean and the 1995). Although there has been much interest in pre- California Current have undergone dramatic changes in dicting the effects of climate change, especially on fish- zooplankton biomass that appear to be inversely related eries resources (e.g., see papers in Beaniish 1995), dif- to each other. Using time series and correlation analy- ferent scenarios exist for future trends in basic physical ses, we characterized the historical nature of zooplank- processes such as upwelling (Bakun 1990; Hsieh and ton biomass at Ocean Station P (50"N,145"W) and froiii Boer 1992). Biological processes are niore laborious to offshore stations in the CalCOFI region.
    [Show full text]