DOCSLIB.ORG

Acipenser Brevirostrum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Similarly, where the information had not changed since the publication of the Final Recovery Plan for Shortnose Sturgeon in 1998, we have either referenced the information or included text taken directly from the Recovery Plan. Contributing Biologists: Dr. Matthew Litvak Dr. David Secor Mark Boriek Hal Brundage Dr. Joseph Hightower Dr. Eric Hilton John O'Herron Fritz Rohde Bob Sadzinski Tom Savoy Dr. Wayne Starnes This document should be cited as: Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2010. A Biological Assessment of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. November 1, 2010. 417 pp. ii Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team Members and their affiliation: Jeanette Bowers- Altman New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Mark Collins, Ph.D. South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources Joel Fleming Georgia Department of Natural Resources Kathryn Hattala New York Department of Environmental Conservation Micah Kieffer Conte Anadromous Fish Laboratory (U.S. Geologiocal Survey/Biological Resources Division) Timothy King, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, Aquatic Ecology Branch Wilson Laney, Ph.D. U.S. Fish and Widlife Service – South Atlantic Fisheries Coordination Office, Raleigh, North Carolina Malcolm Mohead NOAAs’ National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland Tom Squiers and Gail Wipplehauser Maine Department of Marine Resources Liaisons to the team: Dana Hartley NOAAs’ National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts1 Stephania Bolden, Ph.D. NOAAs’ National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida 1 Currently at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SFESO, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL, 32960. iii Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………. vi List of Figures…………...………………………………………………………………. xi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations………………………………………………….... xv Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 History of the Endangered Species Act Listing Status ................................................... 4 History of Shortnose Sturgeon Status Reviews and Recovery Planning ........................ 5 Nomenclature and Taxonomy ............................................................................................. 6 Species Description and Natural History .................................................................... 7 Morphology..................................................................................................................... 7 Life History ................................................................................................................... 11 Age and Growth ........................................................................................................ 11 Reproduction ............................................................................................................. 12 Life Stages ................................................................................................................ 13 Migration and Habitat ................................................................................................... 16 Spawning....................................................................................................................... 16 Foraging ........................................................................................................................ 19 Overwintering ............................................................................................................... 20 Species Diversity and Evolutionary Significance ............................................................. 21 Population Structure of Shortnose Sturgeon ................................................................. 23 Behavioral Information ............................................................................................. 24 Coastal Movements ................................................................................................... 24 Genetic Analyses .......................................................................................................... 27 Mitochondrial DNA Analyses .................................................................................. 27 Nuclear DNA Analyses............................................................................................. 37 Captive Broodstock and Progeny.............................................................................. 63 The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range ............................................................................................................................ 64 Dams and Diversions ................................................................................................ 65 Other Energy Projects ............................................................................................... 70 Dredging, Blasting and Pile Driving ......................................................................... 75 Water Quality and Contaminants .............................................................................. 79 Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 83 Summary and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 88 iv Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational Scientific or Educational Purposes Commercial Fisheries ................................................................................................... 88 Bycatch ..................................................................................................................... 88 Poaching .................................................................................................................... 92 Scientific research ..................................................................................................... 92 Summary and evaluation ........................................................................................... 92 Competition, Predation and Disease ............................................................................. 93 Competition and Predation ....................................................................................... 93 Disease ...................................................................................................................... 96 Summary and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 98 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ............................................................ 98 International .............................................................................................................. 99 National ..................................................................................................................... 99 State......................................................................................................................... 103 Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species .. 104 Ship strikes .............................................................................................................. 104 Artificial propagation .............................................................................................. 105 Escapement of hatchery/captive fishes ................................................................... 105 Potential impacts to genetic diversity from
Recommended publications
  • Examining the Economic Impacts of Hydropower Dams on Property Values Using GIS

    Examining the Economic Impacts of Hydropower Dams on Property Values Using GIS

    Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) S258–S269 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Examining the economic impacts of hydropower dams on property values using GIS Curtis Bohlen, Lynne Y. Lewis* Department of Economics, Bates College, Lewiston, ME 04240, United States article info abstract Article history: While the era of dam building is largely over in the United States, globally dams are still being proposed Received 25 October 2007 and constructed. The articles in this special issue consider many aspects and impacts of dams around the Received in revised form 30 March 2008 world. This paper examines dam removal and the measurement of the impacts of dams on local Accepted 30 July 2008 community property values. Valuable lessons may be found. Available online 20 November 2008 In the United States, hundreds of small hydropower dams will come up for relicensing in the coming decade. Whether or not the licensees are renewed and what happens to the dams if the licenses expires Keywords: is a subject of great debate. Dams are beginning to be removed for river restoration and fisheries Dams Dam removal restoration and these ‘‘end-of-life’’ decisions may offer lessons for countries proposing or currently Hedonic property value analysis building small (and large) hydropower dams. What can these restoration stories tell us? GIS In this paper, we examine the effects of dams along the Penobscot River in Maine (USA) on residential property values. We compare the results to findings from a similar (but ex post dam removal) data set for properties along the Kennebec river in Maine, where the Edwards Dam was removed in 1999.
  • 2008 Annual Report

    2008 Annual Report

    Document ID #P113359 Report covers work performed under BPA contract #26763 Report was completed under BPA contract #34772 REPORT ON THE PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN EXPERIMENTAL NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission In Cooperation with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Department of Agriculture Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Project Number 199007700 Contract Number 00026763 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Report A – Sport Reward Fishery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers 10 Abstract 11 Introduction 12 Methods of Operation 13 Fishery Operation 13 Boundaries and Season 13 Registration Stations 14 Reward System 14 Angler Sampling 15 Returning Anglers 16 Non-Returning Anglers 16 Northern Pikeminnow Handling Procedures 17 Biological Sampling 17 PIT Tag Detection 17 Northern Pikeminnow Processing 18 Results and Discussion 18 Northern Pikeminnow Harvest 18 Harvest by Week 19 Harvest by Fishing Location 20 Harvest by Registration Station 21 Harvest by Species/Incidental Catch 22 Angler Effort 24 Effort by Week 25 Effort by Fishing Location 27 Effort by Registration Station 27 Catch Per Angler Day (CPUE) 28 CPUE by Week 29 CPUE by Fishing Location 30 CPUE by Registration Station 30 Angler Totals 31 Tag Recovery 34 Northern
  • B. Quantitative Characters Morphometric & Meristics Laboratory

    B. Quantitative Characters Morphometric & Meristics Laboratory

    Lab. No. 2 B. Quantitative Characters Morphometric & Meristics laboratory Taxonomic Characters The first step in successfully working with fishes is correct identification. Similar species require in depth examination to discern the few differentiating characteristics. Many times these examinations require accurate measurements and counts of fin ray elements. Objectives: The purpose of this lab is to introduce students to these characters. Quantitative Characters Quantitative characters are usually expressed as numbers, these include a measurable and countable characters. Morphometrics are measurable characters or length-based measures of specific body parts, such as total length of the body or diameter of the eye. These characters are usually measured in the millimeter scale. Meristics are counts of things which occur more than once, but a variable number of times between species (and sometimes within species). These include counts of fin elements, i.e.: the number of dorsal fin spines and rays. NOTICE Spines are hard, pinlike projections, while rays are soft and brush-like Occasionally, fins will be a mix of both spines and rays; however, spines are ALWAYS the most forward structures (closest to the head) on the fin. The table below helps you to differentiate between a spine and a ray Spines Rays Hard and pointed Segmented Unsegmented Sometimes branched Unbranched Bilateral with left and right halves Solid Because they are already dimensionless, meristic measurements can be compared directly. 8 Lab. No. 2 Laboratory exercise In this exercise we will be making various measurements and counts on several species of fish. Record the appropriate information in the attached table. Procedure—Morphology • Each group is equipped with: • Dissecting microscope • Needle probe • Dissecting tray • Scissors • Petri dish • Scalpel • Calipers • Slides and coverslips • Forceps (fine tip and blunt tip) • Latex gloves (optional) Each team should get a fish.
  • First Verified Occurrence of the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser Brevirostrum) in the James River, Virginia

    First Verified Occurrence of the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser Brevirostrum) in the James River, Virginia

    19 6 Abstract—The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is an en- First verified occurrence of the shortnose dangered species of fish that inhab- sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) its the continental slope of the At- lantic Ocean from New Brunswick, in the James River, Virginia Canada, to Florida. This species has not been documented previously in the freshwater portion of any river Matthew Balazik of the Chesapeake Bay, except in the Potomac River. On 13 March 2016, a Email address for author: [email protected] shortnose sturgeon was captured in the freshwater portion of the James Center for Environmental Studies River at river kilometer 48. The Virginia Commonwealth University fish had a fork length of about 75 1000 West Cary Street cm and was likely mature. Genetic Richmond, Virginia 23284 analysis confirmed the fish was a shortnose sturgeon and was assigned to the Chesapeake Bay–Delaware population segment. Regardless of whether this shortnose sturgeon was part of a remnant Chesapeake The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser ture of shortnose sturgeon, as well Bay population or whether its cap- brevirostrum) is an amphidromous (Spells1; Welsh et al., 2002; Mangold ture there is an indicator of an ex- sturgeon reported to inhabit the con- et al.2). Only one genetically verified pansion of range from the Delaware tinental slope of the Atlantic Ocean shortnose sturgeon was collected in River by way of the Chesapeake and from New Brunswick, Canada, to Virginia waters as part of these pro- Delaware Canal, dedicated research Florida (Gruchy and Parker, 1980; grams (Spells1; Welsh et al., 2002). is needed to determine the status of Dadswell et al., 1984; Kynard, 1997).
  • The Genetic Basis of Morphometric and Meristic Traits in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss)

    The Genetic Basis of Morphometric and Meristic Traits in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss)

    Central Annals of Aquaculture and Research Research Article *Corresponding author Domitilla Pulcini, Department of Biology, “Tor Vergata” University of Rome, Consiglio per la Ricerca in The Genetic Basis of Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Via Salaria 31, 00016, Monterotondo (Rome), Italy, Tel: 39-06- 90090263; Email: Morphometric and Meristic Submitted: 30 September 2016 Accepted: 18 October 2016 Traits in Rainbow Trout Published: 21 October 2016 ISSN: 2379-0881 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Copyright © 2016 Pulcini et al. Domitilla Pulcini1,2*, Kristofer Christensen3, Paul A. Wheeler3, OPEN ACCESS Tommaso Russo2, and Gary H. Thorgaard3 1,2Department of Biology, “Tor Vergata” University of Rome, Italy Keywords 3School of Biological Sciences and Center for Reproductive Biology, Washington State • Domestication University, USA • Geometric morphometrics • QTL • Meristics Abstract • Salmonids In fishes, body shape, is a complex trait involving several genetic and environmental • Shape factors. Understanding the genetic basis of phenotypic variation in body form could lead to breeding strategies aimed at adapting body shape to captive environments. In the present study, QTLs associated with morphometric and meristic traits in rainbow trout were identified using a genetic linkage map created from a cross of two clonal lines divergent for morphology and life history (wild steelhead trout and domesticated rainbow trout). Genome regions associated with differences in morphological (body depth, mouth orientation, caudal peduncle shape, anal and dorsal fin length) and meristic (number of skeletal elements of median and paired fins and of caudal fin) characters were identified. The identification of genomic locations influencing body morphology, even if only at a gross level, could be of pivotal importance to direct breeding strategies in commercial hatcheries towards the production of more desirable body types.
  • 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)

    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.
  • Snakeheadsnepal Pakistan − (Pisces,India Channidae) PACIFIC OCEAN a Biologicalmyanmar Synopsis Vietnam

    Snakeheadsnepal Pakistan − (Pisces,India Channidae) PACIFIC OCEAN a Biologicalmyanmar Synopsis Vietnam

    Mongolia North Korea Afghan- China South Japan istan Korea Iran SnakeheadsNepal Pakistan − (Pisces,India Channidae) PACIFIC OCEAN A BiologicalMyanmar Synopsis Vietnam and Risk Assessment Philippines Thailand Malaysia INDIAN OCEAN Indonesia Indonesia U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1251 SNAKEHEADS (Pisces, Channidae)— A Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment By Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., and James D. Williams U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1251 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. GROAT, Director Use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. Copyrighted material reprinted with permission. 2004 For additional information write to: Walter R. Courtenay, Jr. Florida Integrated Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 7920 N.W. 71st Street Gainesville, Florida 32653 For additional copies please contact: U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., and James D. Williams Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae)—A Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment / by Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., and James D. Williams p. cm. — (U.S. Geological Survey circular ; 1251) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN.0-607-93720 (alk. paper) 1. Snakeheads — Pisces, Channidae— Invasive Species 2. Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment. Title. II. Series. QL653.N8D64 2004 597.8’09768’89—dc22 CONTENTS Abstract . 1 Introduction . 2 Literature Review and Background Information . 4 Taxonomy and Synonymy .
  • Development of a System-Wide Predator Control Program: Northern Squawfish Management Program

    Development of a System-Wide Predator Control Program: Northern Squawfish Management Program

    Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation Annual Report 1997 October 1998 DOE/BP-24514-8 This Document should be cited as follows: Young, Franklin, "Development of a System-wide Predator Control Program; Northern Squawfish Management Program - Implementation", 1997 Annual Report, Project No. 199007700, 100 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-24514-8) Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMWIDE PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAM: STEPWISE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDATION INDEX, PREDATOR CONTROL FISHERIES, AND EVALUATION PLAN IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SECTION I: IMPLEMENTATION 1997 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared by: Franklin R. Young Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority In Cooperation With Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation Prepared
  • Variation of the Spotted Sunfish, Lepomis Punctatus Complex

    Variation of the Spotted Sunfish, Lepomis Punctatus Complex

    Variation of the Spotted Sunfish, Lepomis punctatus Complex (Centrarehidae): Meristies, Morphometries, Pigmentation and Species Limits BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY The scientific publication of the Alabama Museum of Natural History. Richard L. Mayden, Editor, John C. Hall, Managing Editor. BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY is published by the Alabama Museum of Natural History, a unit of The University of Alabama. The BULLETIN succeeds its predecessor, the MUSEUM PAPERS, which was terminated in 1961 upon the transfer of the Museum to the University from its parent organization, the Geological Survey of Alabama. The BULLETIN is devoted primarily to scholarship and research concerning the natural history of Alabama and the midsouth. It appears irregularly in consecutively numbered issues. Communication concerning manuscripts, style, and editorial policy should be addressed to: Editor, BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, The University of Alabama, Box 870340, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0340; Telephone (205) 348-7550. Prospective authors should examine the Notice to Authors inside the back cover. Orders and requests for general information should be addressed to Managing Editor, BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, at the above address. Numbers may be purchased individually; standing orders are accepted. Remittances should accompany orders for individual numbers and be payable to The University of Alabama. The BULLETIN will invoice standing orders. Library exchanges may be handled through: Exchange Librarian, The University of Alabama, Box 870266, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0340. When citing this publication, authors are requested to use the following abbreviation: Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. ISSN: 0196-1039 Copyright 1991 by The Alabama Museum of Natural History Price this number: $6.00 })Il{ -w-~ '{(iI1 .....~" _--.
  • Shorey's Brook Dam to Be Removed in York County

    Shorey's Brook Dam to Be Removed in York County

    FALL 2011/ WINTER 2012 THE NEWSLETTER OF MAINE RIVERS Shorey’s Brook Dam to be Removed in York County Much of the 4.3-mile Shorey’s in August 2010. Led by project Brook in South Berwick has manager and stewardship not actually looked like a coordinator Darrell DeTour, typical brook for many years. GWRLT has gathered many !e culprit is a dam perched partners, including the Wells several hundred yards below National Estuarine Research Route 101. Built as early as Reserve, the National the 1630s, it has morphed over Oceanic and Atmospheric the centuries into a decrepit Administration, Conservation hodgepodge of industrial Decrepit and inconspicuous, the Shorey’s Brook dam Law Foundation, the US Fish material, impenetrable by is di!cult to capture in a picture. Right, Tin Smith and Wildlife Service, and anadromous "sh including leads a tour of the restoration site. others, to plan, permit, and alewives, smelt, and Atlantic fund the removal. salmon. A dam removal is currently on track to take place !is project promises to be a success in Maine both for in November to restore the brook. In early October we reconnecting long-fragmented habitat and as a model to toured the dam removal site with members of Great Works inspire other entities—land trusts, municipalities, and Regional Land Trust and other project partners. others—who may be considering a dam removal project !e Great Works Regional Land Trust (GWRLT) acquired but are daunted by the perceived complexity and cost. To the 27-acre Raymond & Simone Savage Wildlife Preserve date this project has drawn little controversy and is on that surrounds Shorey’s Brook in 2008.
  • 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act

    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.
  • Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal

    Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal

    A Research Paper by Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 <Year> Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 PUBLISHED ONLINE: http://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/local-studies/dam-removal-case-studies ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Megan Lawson, Ph.D.| [email protected] | 406-570-7475 P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headwaterseconomics.org Cover Photo: Whittenton Pond Dam, Mill River, Massachusetts. American Rivers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 MEASURING THE BENEFITS OF DAM REMOVAL ........................................................................................... 2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 5 CASE STUDIES WHITTENTON POND DAM, MILL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS ........................................................................ 11 ELWHA AND GLINES CANYON DAMS, ELWHA RIVER, WASHINGTON ........................................................ 14 EDWARDS DAM, KENNEBEC RIVER, MAINE ...............................................................................................