DOCSLIB.ORG

Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Nome, Alaska

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The Port of Nome is a regional hub port located on the Seward Peninsula and adjacent to the Norton Sound, which is centrally located along the Western Alaska coast. Nome has no access to the Alaska road system and is approximately 545 miles northwest of Anchorage, Alaska. Previous studies going back to at least 1997 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and others identify Nome as a major regional center of waterborne transportation and recommend improvements to the marine navigation system. The purpose of this study is to identify a feasible solution that provides safe, reliable, and efficient navigation and mooring for vessels serving the hub community of Nome, Alaska. The project is needed to alleviate existing vessel restrictions that are imposed by insufficient channel depths and harbor area. Ship transportation into the Port of Nome, also referred to as the Nome Harbor, is presently limited by existing depths in the Outer Basin of minus 22 feet (ft) mean lower low water (MLLW). This basin depth is inadequate to safely accommodate vessels of drafts greater than approximately 18 ft Vessel traffic in the Arctic, coupled with limited marine infrastructure and available draft in Nome and the region, results in operational inefficiencies, vessel damages and decreased safety, increased costs of goods and services, and threats to the long-term viability of surrounding communities. A robust and efficient transportation hub at Nome is foundational to the long-term viability of communities in the region. As the United States’ only deep water port in the Arctic, Nome provides a critical link between these communities, the rest of Alaska, and beyond. Remote Alaska communities face challenges that are complex and multifaceted. The viability of a community is based on its ability to survive and thrive. Factors impacting community viability include (but are not limited to): economics, costs to add or replace critical infrastructure, risk of i Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment relocation, food security and access to resources for subsistence, and outmigration. While it is difficult to quantify a direct link between a Nome navigation project and improvements to the viability of a community, Port of Nome improvements can strengthen the resiliency of the region. One aspect contributing to the viability of a community is the need to initially construct or replace aging or threatened critical infrastructure from the effects of climate change: thawing permafrost, rising sea levels, more frequent storms, and coastal erosion. Given a lack of infrastructure in some communities and inadequate systems in others, combined with challenges from climate change, the need for water and sewer improvements in the region is profound. The viability of some villages in the region, and the safety and quality of life for the residents of those villages, is so threatened by climate change that they are considering relocation. The total rough order of magnitude cost for immediate relocation of two villages (Shaktoolik and Shishmaref) and phased relocation of an additional three villages (Teller, Golovin, and Unalakleet) totals over 1 billion dollars. The Port of Nome as a hub port for the region is in a position to support construction projects in the region by being a point of entry for construction goods that could be more efficiently delivered in larger volumes to Nome than the villages that lack a deep draft port. This could improve cargo reliability to the outlying villages as the large construction projects. This draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment (IFREA) documents the analysis and coordination conducted to determine whether the Federal Government should participate in navigation improvements at Nome, Alaska that would ultimately provide benefits to the entire region identified as the Bering Strait Region lands, and determines the feasibility of Federal participation in potential improvements. This Supplemental EA is being released for public review. An IFREA document was previously released for public review in May 2019. Since that time, POA determined that changes in the project construction would cause effects to various endangered and protected marine mammal species. Specifically, the change in dock design from a concrete caisson to sheet pile dock causes higher noise impacts during construction than initially anticipated due to the pile-driving work now required. Proposed modification to the Port of Nome improves navigation, provides safe, reliable, and efficient waterborne transportation systems for movement of commerce, national security, and recreation at the Port of Nome. The Port of Nome currently includes two basins, an Inner and Outer Basin. The Inner Basin is not part of this study. The study considers a wide range of measures and alternative plans, and the environmental consequences of those alternatives. Except for dredging and navigation aids, none of the non-structural measures were carried forward because they did not meet the planning objectives and criteria given site conditions, or they were already being considered or being implemented by the non-Federal sponsor at this time. Structural measures that were carried forward were combined to develop an initial array of alternatives evaluated, which were then screened to identify a final array of alternatives. ii Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment In addition to a “no action” plan (Alternative 1), 13 alternatives were initially evaluated. This initial array of alternatives was screened based on their ability to meet the project- specific objectives and performance criteria. Seven alternatives, including no action, were carried forward and evaluated with various dredge depths (Alternatives 1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 8a, and 8b). Dredged material management was evaluated as a separable element that did not influence plan selection because the same placement/disposal option and dredge method applied to all the alternatives. All of the structural alternatives generally included modifications that create a Deep Water Basin of varying sizes and depths at the entrance to the existing Outer Basin, increase the entrance channel width to the Outer Basin, and add docks for berthing. Table ES-1. General description of modifications by alternative. Alte rnative Description of Modification(1) Number 1 No Action 2,340 ft long L-Shaped West Causeway extension to approximately -30 ft 3a, 3b, 3c MLLW and modification of the East Breakwater Similar to Alternative 3a-3c, except a portion of the East Breakwater is 4a converted to a combination causeway/breakwater aligned along F Street 3,937 ft (Alt. 8a) or 3,484 ft (Alt. 8b) West Causeway extension to approximately the -45 ft MLLW bathymetric contour (Alt 8a) or -40 ft MLLW 8a, 8b (Alt 8b), removal of the East Breakwater, and construction of a new East Causeway aligned with F-Street Note: (1) All the alternatives include additional docks, dredging to -28 ft MLLW in Outer Basin, dredging betw een -30 and -40 ft MLLW in the Deep Water Basin, and new utilities (fuel header, pipelines, w ater and electrical), except the No Action Alternative. Each alternative also include s a nearshore placement area for dredge material. The measures or features that differentiated between the alternatives ranged from minimal changes to the existing east breakwater (Alternatives 3a, 3b, and 3c), converting a portion or all the east breakwater to a causeway (Alternative 4a), and varying the number
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]
  • 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]
  • Technical Memorandum Moonlight Wells Protection Area
    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM MOONLIGHT WELLS PROTECTION AREA NOME, ALASKA BEESC Project No. 25071 June 2005 Prepared for: City of Nome Nome Joint Utility System P.O. Box 281 P.O. Box 70 Nome, Alaska 99762 Nome, Alaska 99762 2000 W. International Airport Road, #C‐1 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Phone (907) 563‐0013 Fax (907) 563‐6713 Final Technical Memorandum Moonlight Wells Protection Area BEESC Project No. 25071 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................... i TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM.................................................................................................1 REFERENCE................................................................................................................................4 TABLE Table 1 Moonlight Wells Information ...................................................................................2 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Proposed Moonlight Wells Protection Area Figure 3 B-B’ Crosssection Figure 4 A-A’ Crosssection Figure 5 Moonlight Wells Protection Area and Land Status APPENDICES Appendix A Geology and Geophysics of the Moonlight Wells Area Appendix B Well Logs ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BEESC Bristol Environmental & Engineering Services Corporation bgs below ground surface June 2005 i Revision 3 Final Technical Memorandum Moonlight Wells Protection Area BEESC Project No. 25071 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM The City of Nome obtains drinking water from a groundwater source located at Moonlight Springs. Moonlight Springs is located approximately 3 miles north of the Nome airport (see Figure 1). The City of Nome currently obtains water from three wells located in a fractured marble formation. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to define the protection area of the marble aquifer associated with the three drinking water wells and to identify potential activities that could impact the aquifer within the protection area. Prior to 2001, Nome obtained drinking water from a collection gallery located at Moonlight Springs.
    [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]
  • Controls on Fishing Behavior on the Nome River
    CONTROLS ON FISHING BEHAVIOR ON THE NOME RIVER Jim Magdanz and Annie Olanna Technical Paper No. 102 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Nome, Alaska February 1984 ABSTRACT Very few chum salmon were observed escaping upriver to spawn in the Nome River in 1982 and 1983. Attempts to close a portion of the river to net fishing met strong opposition in 1980. The problem is how to effectively manage fishing without causing unnecessary hardship or disruption. The objectives of this study were (1) to describe the history of the Nome River fishery from earliest records (about 1880) through the present and (2) to -identify factors that control fishing behavior among Nome River fishers today. Special attention is given to ..= controls other than Fish and Game regulations; these controls were labeled "internal" controls. Before the gold rush to Nome in 1899, the Nome River was the site of a small, perhaps seasonal, settlement of Inupiat Eskimo. During the gold rush, the Inupiat were displaced by gold miners and the U.S. Army, (who built a fort at the river mouth). After the army closed Fort Davis in 1921 and mining slowed in the thirties, fishing and other subsistence activities again became the primary use of the river. During World War II, mining virtually ceased. Inupiat immigrants to Nome -- principally from the western Seward Peninsula -- established a camp at the mouth of the river on the site of old Fort Davis. Following statehood in 1959, commercial salmon fisheries began to develop in the area. The Nome subdistrict commercial salmon fishery, however, was quite small until 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsistence Land Use in Nome, a Northwest Alaska Regional Center
    JamesMagdanzardAnnieOlanna Technical Pam No. 148 Tics researchwas partM~y,suppo~ byANILafed@ralaidfurds~~ the U.S. Fish arxi Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska Division of subsistence AlaskaDepartmerrtofFishandGame Juneau, Alaska 1986 This study documented areas used for hunting, fishing, and gathering wild rescxllces by a sample of 46 households inNome, Alaska. The study purposes were: (1) to document the extent of areas used by None residents, and (2)to compare areas usedby membersofd.ifferentName~ties. Nome, with 3,876 residents in 1985, was the largest oommuni*innorthweest+skaandwastentimesaslaKgeasany conununiw which had existed in the local area before 1850. Nly 25 percent of the 15,000 people in Northwest Alaska lived in Nome. Nome was a regional oenter for~government, transportation, ardretailtrade. Namewasapolyglatcammunitywitha59percent Eskimo majority (many of whom had moved to Nome from smaller communities in the region). Minorities (some ofwhomhadlived in Nome all their lives) included whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics. Previous studies have shown that nearly allhouse- holds inNomeharvestedatleastsomewildrescxlrces. Thisstudyf~thatNomekharvestareasweretwotothree timesaslargeashawest areas forothersmallercommunities in theregia Roads facilitatedharvestirg, especiallyofmooseand plank Thesampledhauseholdsharvestedthroqh&thesouthern Seward Peninsula from Wales to cape Darby, throughout Norton Sound, and in the Bering Strait. A majority of the households With~orspcrusesborninother~~w~Alaskacommunities alsor&urnedtothosecommunitiestoharvestwildresaurces.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Fish and Wildlife
    Alasha Habitat Management Guide Life Histories and Habitat Requirements of Fish and Wildlife Produced b'y State of Alasha Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat Iuneau, Alasha 1986 @ Tgge BY TTIE AI.ASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AI{D GA}IE Contents Achnowtedgemena v i i Introduction 3 0verview of Habitat l{anagement Guides Project 3 Background 3 Purpose 3 Appl ications 4 Statewide volumes 6 Regional volumes 9 0rganization and Use of this Volume 10 Background 10 Organization 10 Species selection criteria 10 Regional Overview Surmaries 11 Southwest Region 11 Southcentral Region 13 Arctic Region 15 hlestern and Interior regions L7 ,lf{atnmals Mari ne Manmal s --BEfiEti-Thale zr Bowhead whale 39 Harbor seal 55 Northern fur seal 63 Pacific walrus 7L Polar bear 89 Ringed seal 107 Sea otter 119 Steller sea lion 131 ffiTerrestrial Mamrnals Brown bear 149 Caribou 165 Dall sheep 175 El k 187 Moose 193 Si tka bl ack-tai'led deer 209 1,1,L Contents (continued) Birds Bald Eagle 229 Dabbl ing ducks 241 Diving ducks 255 Geese 27L Seabirds 29L Trumpeter swan 301 Tundra swan 309 Fish Freshwater/Anadromous Fi sh en 3L7 Arctic aray'ling 339 Broad whitefish 361 Burbot 377 Humpback whitefish 389 Lake trout 399 Least cisco 413 Northern pike 425 Rainbow trout/steelhead 439 Sa I mon Chum 457 Chinook 481 Coho 501 Pink 519 Sockeye 537 Sheefish 555 l.lari ne Fi sh cod 57L --ffiiTCapel in 581 Pacific cod 591 Pacific hal ibut 599 Pacific herring 607 Pacific ocean perch 62L Sablefish 629 Saffron cod 637 Starry flounder 649 t{al leye pol lock 657 Yelloweye rockfish 667 Yel lowfin sole 673 Contents (continued) Shel I fi sh crab 683 King crab 691 -ungenessRazor clam 709 Shrimp 7L5 Tanner crab 727 Appendi ces A.
    [Show full text]
  • SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL and MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005
    NISTIR 7562 SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL AND MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005 Stacy S. Vander Pol1 Paul R. Becker1 Rusty D. Day1 Michael B. Ellisor1 Aurore Guichard1 Amanda J. Moors1 David Point1 Rebecca S. Pugh1 David G. Roseneau2 1U.S. Department of Commerce 2U.S. Department of the Interior National Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Analytical Chemsitry Division Homer, AK 99603 Hollings Marine Laboratory Charleston, SC 29412 NISTIR 7562 SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL AND MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005 Stacy S. Vander Pol1 Paul R. Becker1 Rusty D. Day1 Michael B. Ellisor1 Aurore Guichard1 Amanda J. Moors1 David Point1 Rebecca S. Pugh1 David G. Roseneau2 1U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Hollings Marine Laboratory Charleston, SC 29412 2U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Homer, AK 99603 February 2009 Erratum: Glaucous gull eggs were not collected from the Penny River delta, but rather at a colony approximately 24 km to the west-northwest in the Sinuk River delta. This correction does not affect the findings of the report. Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Arctic Subarea Contingency Plan
    NORTHWEST ARCTIC SUBAREA CONTINGENCY PLAN SENSITIVE AREAS SECTION SENSITIVE AREAS: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART ONE – INFORMATION SOURCES ............................................................................ 7 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART TWO – AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN .................................................. 11 A. BACKGROUND/CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 11 B. AREAS OF MAJOR CONCERN .......................................................................................................... 11 C. AREAS OF MODERATE CONCERN ................................................................................................... 13 D. AREAS OF LESSER CONCERN .......................................................................................................... 13 E. AREAS OF LOCAL CONCERN ........................................................................................................... 13 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART THREE – RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ......................................................................... 24 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART FOUR – BIOLOGICAL AND HUMAN USE RESOURCES ........................................... 34 A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 34 B. HABITAT TYPES ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Physiographic Subdivisions of the Chirikov Basin, Northern Bering Sea
    PHYSIOGRAPHIC SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CHIRIKOV BASIN, NORTHERN BERING SEA Physiographic subdivisions of the Chirikov Basin, northern Bering Sea By D. M. HOPKINS, C. H. NELSON, R. B. PERRY, and TAU RHO ALPHA STUDIES ON THE MARINE GEOLOGY OF THE BERING SEA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 759-B Prepared in cooperation with National Ocean Survey, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1976 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR THOMAS S. KLEPPE, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hopkins, David Moody, 1921- Physiographic subdivisions of the Chirikov Basin, northern Bering Sea. (Studies on the Marine geology of the Bering Sea) (Geological Survey Professional Paper 759-B) Bibliography: p. 1. Submarine topography-Chirikof Basin. 2. Chirikof Basin. I. Hopkins, David Moody, 1921- II. National Ocean Survey. III. Series. IV. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 759-B. GC85.2.B4 7P48 551.4'65'51 76-29239 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-001-02917-1 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract Bl Physiography-Continued Introduction _____________________________________________ _ 1 Offshore physiographic units-Continued Acknovvledgments _________________________________________ _ 2 Point Spencer Shoal area-Continued Physiography _____________________________________________ _ 2 Tin City Shoal --------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Distribution of Alaska Birds 93
    92 STUDIES IN AVIAN BIOLOGY NO. 1 This paper is, indeed, the result of many hours of cooperative effort by many people. LITERATURE CITED ADAMS, E. 1878. Notes on the birds of Michalaski, Norton Sound. Ibis 1878:420-442. AMERICANORNITHOLOGISTS UNION.’ 1957. Check-list of North American birds. Fifth ed. A.O.U., Baltimore. AMERICANORNITHOLOGISTS UNION.’ 1973. Thirty-second supplement to the American Omitholo- gists’ Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 90:41l-419. AMERICANORNITHOLOGISTS UNION.’ 1976. Thirty-third supplementto the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 93:875-879. ANDERSON,R. M. 1913. Report on the natural history collections. Birds. Pp. 456-494 in V. Ste- fansson, My life with the Eskimo, Macmillan Co., New York. ANDERSON,R. M. 1915. Preliminary list of specimens collected during Canadian arctic expedition, 1913-1914. Birds. Summary Rept., Geol. Survey Dept. Mines 1914:163-166. ANDERSSON,M. 1973. Birds of Nuvagapak Point, northeastern Alaska. Arctic 26:186-197. BAILEY, A. M. 1925. A report on the birds of northwestern Alaska and regions adjacent to Bering Strait. Part IV. Condor 27:164-171. BAILEY, A. M. 1926. A report on the birds of northwestern Alaska and regions adjacent to Bering Strait. Part VII. Condor 28:31-36. BAILEY, A. M. 1927. Notes on the birds of southeasternAlaska. Auk 44:1-23, 184-205, 351-367. BAILEY, A. M. 1948. Birds of arctic Alaska. Colorado Mus. Nat. Hist. Popular Ser. No. 8. BAILEY, E. P. 1974a. Passerine diversity, relative abundance, and migration at Cold Bay, Alaska. Bird-Banding 45:145-151.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]