DOCSLIB.ORG

Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra Lutris Kenyoni) Draft Recovery Plan This Page Intentionally Blank

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra Lutris Kenyoni) Draft Recovery Plan This Page Intentionally Blank U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Draft Recovery Plan This page intentionally blank. Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhyra lutris kenyoni) Draft Recovery Plan August 2010 Prepared by Marine Mammals Management Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska Approved: ________________________________ Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: __________________________ This page intentionally blank. Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the FWS. They represent the FWS official position only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhyra lutris kenyoni) - Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Alaska. 171pp. Draft Recovery Plan i Recovery Team Members Lloyd Lowry - (Team Leader), University of Alaska Fairbanks Douglas Burn - (Agency Lead), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lance Barrett -Lennard, University of British Columbia David Benton - Marine Conservation Alliance James Bodkin - U.S. Geological Survey Kathleen Burek - Alaska Veterinary Pathology Services Jim Curland - Defenders of Wildlife Douglas DeMaster - National Marine Fisheries Service James Estes - U.S. Geological Survey (retired) and University of California, Santa Cruz Dick Jacobsen - Aleutians East Borough Ken Pitcher - Alaska Department of Fish and Game (retired) Katherine Ralls - Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park Margaret Roberts - The Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission Tim Tinker - U.S. Geological Survey and University of California, Santa Cruz Kate Wynne - University of Alaska Sea Grant Program Acknowledgements The Recovery Team wishes to thank the following individuals who attended and participated in team meetings: Greg Balogh, Leonard Corin, Angela Doroff, Verena Gill, Tracey Goldstein, Rowan Gould, Aaron Haines, Charles Hamilton, Lianna Jack, Judy Jacobs, Sonja Jahrsdorfer, Karen Laing, Ellen Lance, Rosa Meehan, Karen Oakley, Alvin Osterback, Peggy Osterback, Leslie Slater, Robert Small, Kristine Sowl, Charla Sterne, Ted Swem, Doug Vincent-Lang, Jeff Williams, and Bill Wilson. The Team also thanks Melissa Miller, Tracey Goldstein, and Stephen Raverty for providing unpublished information about diseases in sea otters, and Dana Jenski, Angela Doroff, and Verena Gill for assistance with recording minutes during Team meetings. Rose Primmer provided technical support for both the public and internal Team web pages. Ellen Baier coordinated travel arrangements for out-of-town Team members. The North Pacific Research Board graciously provided space for Team meetings. Randy Reeves provided a thorough review of the Team’s draft plan, and we thank him for his helpful comments and suggestions. Rosa Meehan and Sonja Jarhsdorfer provided additional review and comments on the draft plan. ii Southwest Alaska DPS of the Northern Sea Otter Executive Summary Based on survey information that indicated that where they had been extirpated by the fur harvest. the southwest Alaska population of northern sea During the 1990s, sea otter surveys in the Aleutian otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) had declined archipelago indicated that the population trend in abundance by more than 50% since the mid- had shifted from growth and expansion to decline. 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Additional surveys throughout southwest Alaska listed this distinct population segment (DPS) helped define the scope and magnitude of the as threatened in August 2005. Section 4(f) of population decline, which led eventually to the the Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs the listing of this DPS as threatened. Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement plans (generally known as “recovery plans”) for The southwest Alaska DPS ranges from west to the conservation and survival of endangered east across more than 1,500 miles of shoreline, and species and threatened species. In March 2006, the otters occur in a number of distinct habitat the Regional Director for the Alaska Region of types. The magnitude of the population decline the FWS formed a recovery team to serve in an has varied over the range. In some areas, numbers advisory capacity to develop a draft recovery plan have declined by more than an order of magnitude, for the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea while in other areas no decline has been detected. otter. To address such differences, this recovery plan identifies five management units (MUs) within The sea otter is the largest species in the mustelid the DPS: 1) Western Aleutian Islands; 2) Eastern family, and one of the smallest marine mammals. It Aleutian Islands; 3) South Alaska Peninsula; 4) possesses a number of unique adaptations allowing Bristol Bay; and 5) Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska it to exist in the nearshore marine environment. Peninsula. As the only marine mammal that lacks a blubber layer, the sea otter relies on a dense coat of fur as The cause of the overall decline is not known insulation from the cold waters where it occurs. To with certainty, but the weight of evidence points maintain the insulative properties of their fur, sea to increased predation, most likely by the killer otters must groom themselves regularly. Their whale (Orcinus orca), as the most likely cause. reliance on fur for insulation also makes them Predation is therefore considered a threat to the highly vulnerable to oil spills. In addition to using recovery of this DPS, but other threats, including fur for insulation, sea otters have a relatively high infectious disease, biotoxins, contaminants, oil metabolic rate that helps them maintain their spills, food limitation, disturbance, bycatch in body temperature. This requires them to consume fisheries, subsistence harvest, loss of habitat, and large quantities of prey, as much as 20-33% of their illegal take, are also considered in this recovery body weight per day. With few exceptions, sea plan. Threats are summarized in general, and otter prey consists of benthic invertebrates. Sea their relative importance is assessed for each of otter habitat is partially defined by physiological the five MUs. Most threats are assessed to be limitations in diving depth, and the animals of low importance to recovery of the DPS; the generally occur in or near shallow waters. threats judged to be most important are predation (moderate to high importance) and oil spills (low to The discovery of large sea otter populations in moderate importance). Threats from subsistence Alaska by the Russian Bering expedition in 1741 harvest, illegal take, and infectious disease are resulted in a commercial fur harvest that lasted assessed to be of moderate importance in the 170 years and extirpated sea otters from much of Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula MU, but of their historic range. When the species was finally low importance elsewhere. given protection under the International Fur Seal Treaty of 1911, the worldwide population may The goal of the recovery program is to control or have consisted of fewer than 1,000 individuals in reduce threats to the southwest Alaska DPS of 13 remnant colonies. Throughout much of the the northern sea otter to the extent that this DPS 20th century, these remnant colonies grew and no longer requires the protections afforded by the expanded their range, eventually recolonizing ESA and therefore can be delisted. To achieve this much of the species’ historically occupied habitat. goal, the recovery plan identifies three objectives: In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the process of 1) achieve and maintain a self-sustaining population recolonization was enhanced by the translocation of sea otters in each MU; 2) maintain enough sea of otters from areas of high abundance to sites otters to ensure that they are playing a functional Draft Recovery Plan iii role in their nearshore ecosystem; and 3) mitigate threats sufficiently to ensure persistence of sea otters. Each of these objectives includes explicit criteria to determine if the objective has been met; these are known as “delisting criteria.” They stipulate that in order for the DPS to be removed from the Endangered and Threatened Species List, at least three of the five MUs must have met the delisting criteria. The plan also contains criteria to determine if the DPS should be considered for reclassification as endangered; these are known as “uplisting criteria.” Delisting should not be considered if any MU meets the criteria specified for uplisting to endangered. Specific actions to achieve recovery and delisting of the DPS are
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Full Article in PDF Format
    A new marine vertebrate assemblage from the Late Neogene Purisima Formation in Central California, part II: Pinnipeds and Cetaceans Robert W. BOESSENECKER Department of Geology, University of Otago, 360 Leith Walk, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, 9054 (New Zealand) and Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University 200 Traphagen Hall, Bozeman, MT, 59715 (USA) and University of California Museum of Paleontology 1101 Valley Life Sciences Building, Berkeley, CA, 94720 (USA) [email protected] Boessenecker R. W. 2013. — A new marine vertebrate assemblage from the Late Neogene Purisima Formation in Central California, part II: Pinnipeds and Cetaceans. Geodiversitas 35 (4): 815-940. http://dx.doi.org/g2013n4a5 ABSTRACT e newly discovered Upper Miocene to Upper Pliocene San Gregorio assem- blage of the Purisima Formation in Central California has yielded a diverse collection of 34 marine vertebrate taxa, including eight sharks, two bony fish, three marine birds (described in a previous study), and 21 marine mammals. Pinnipeds include the walrus Dusignathus sp., cf. D. seftoni, the fur seal Cal- lorhinus sp., cf. C. gilmorei, and indeterminate otariid bones. Baleen whales include dwarf mysticetes (Herpetocetus bramblei Whitmore & Barnes, 2008, Herpetocetus sp.), two right whales (cf. Eubalaena sp. 1, cf. Eubalaena sp. 2), at least three balaenopterids (“Balaenoptera” cortesi “var.” portisi Sacco, 1890, cf. Balaenoptera, Balaenopteridae gen. et sp. indet.) and a new species of rorqual (Balaenoptera bertae n. sp.) that exhibits a number of derived features that place it within the genus Balaenoptera. is new species of Balaenoptera is relatively small (estimated 61 cm bizygomatic width) and exhibits a comparatively nar- row vertex, an obliquely (but precipitously) sloping frontal adjacent to vertex, anteriorly directed and short zygomatic processes, and squamosal creases.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Impacts and Potential Mitigation for Icebreaking Vessels MARK Transiting Pupping Areas of an Ice-Breeding Seal
    Biological Conservation 214 (2017) 213–222 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Assessment of impacts and potential mitigation for icebreaking vessels MARK transiting pupping areas of an ice-breeding seal ⁎ Susan C. Wilsona, , Irina Trukhanovab, Lilia Dmitrievac, Evgeniya Dolgovad, Imogen Crawforda, Mirgaliy Baimukanove, Timur Baimukanove, Bekzat Ismagambetove, Meirambek Pazylbekovf, ⁎ Mart Jüssig, Simon J. Goodmanc, a Tara Seal Research, Killyleagh, Co. Down, N. Ireland, UK b Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, USA c School of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK d Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russian Federation e Institute of Hydrobiology & Ecology, Karasaysky Raion, Almaty, Kazakhstan f Institute of Fisheries, Almaty, Kazakhstan g Pro Mare MTÜ, Saula, Kose, Harjumaa EE 75101, Estonia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Icebreaker operations in the Arctic and other areas are increasing rapidly to support new industrial activities and Caspian Sea shipping routes, but the impact on pinnipeds in these habitats is poorly explored. We present the first quantitative Pinniped study of icebreakers transiting ice-breeding habitat of a phocid seal and recommendations for mitigation. Impacts Marine mammal were recorded from the vessel bridge during seven ice seasons 2006–2013, for Caspian seals (Pusa caspica) Ship strikes breeding on the winter ice-field of the Caspian Sea. Impacts included displacement and separation of mothers and Aerial survey pups, breakage of birth or nursery sites and vessel-seal collisions. The flight distance of mothers with pups ahead Conservation was < 100 m, but measurable disturbance occurred at distances exceeding 200 m.
    [Show full text]
  • 56. Otariidae and Phocidae
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE JUDITH E. KING 1 Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Southern Elephant Seal–Mirounga leonina [G. Ross] Ross Seal, with pup–Ommatophoca rossii [J. Libke] Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Weddell Seal–Leptonychotes weddellii [P. Shaughnessy] New Zealand Fur-seal–Arctocephalus forsteri [G. Ross] Crab-eater Seal–Lobodon carcinophagus [P. Shaughnessy] 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE DEFINITION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Pinnipeds are aquatic carnivores. They differ from other mammals in their streamlined shape, reduction of pinnae and adaptation of both fore and hind feet to form flippers. In the skull, the orbits are enlarged, the lacrimal bones are absent or indistinct and there are never more than three upper and two lower incisors. The cheek teeth are nearly homodont and some conditions of the ear that are very distinctive (Repenning 1972). Both superfamilies of pinnipeds, Phocoidea and Otarioidea, are represented in Australian waters by a number of species (Table 56.1). The various superfamilies and families may be distinguished by important and/or easily observed characters (Table 56.2). King (1983b) provided more detailed lists and references. These and other differences between the above two groups are not regarded as being of great significance, especially as an undoubted fur seal (Australian Fur-seal Arctocephalus pusillus) is as big as some of the sea lions and has some characters of the skull, teeth and behaviour which are rather more like sea lions (Repenning, Peterson & Hubbs 1971; Warneke & Shaughnessy 1985). The Phocoidea includes the single Family Phocidae – the ‘true seals’, distinguished from the Otariidae by the absence of a pinna and by the position of the hind flippers (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership Strategic Plan (2017)
    Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership Strategic Conservation Action Plan for Southwest Alaska Watersheds 2017 Update Preface In studying the history of the decline of the salmon runs of the Pacific Coast, it is striking to notice how invariably these declines are blamed on over-fishing. These statements come most often from those least acquainted with the subject and are frequently made to cover up other causes, which may be of their own making. While it is true that over-fishing is responsible for many declines, there is evidence to show that in numerous cases it is of minor or no consequence. The actual reasons are often found to be changes in the environment of the salmon due to natural and unnatural (man-made) conditions. This is especially true of the fresh water stages of its existence. Many examples could be cited. Some of the natural ones are cyclic climatic changes, floods, droughts, freezes, earthquakes, earth slides, beaver dams and increase in predators. On the other hand there are such man-made, or unnatural, causes as deforestation due to logging; hydro-electric, irrigation, flood control, and navigation projects; pollution, especially from pulp mills; soil conservation and reclamation schemes; gravel washing and mining operations; road construction such as stream culverts; insect control using poisonous sprays; and many others. The listing of these does not necessarily mean that all are inimical to the continuation of our salmon fisheries. It does mean, however, that if such projects are improperly and unwisely planned, the results will be disastrous to our fisheries. Alaska needs new industries, but not at the expense of her most important resource, which if properly cared for, will produce year after year.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska
    Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska Alaska Regional Response Team, Wildlife Protection Committee Revision 5 – August 2012 2018 Administrative Update Revision 5 – August 2012 Administrative Update: March 2018 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... G-5 A. Background G-5 B. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... G-5 C. Scope of Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska ............................................................... G-6 1. Geographic Area ............................................................................................................. G-6 2. Wildlife Resources .......................................................................................................... G-8 3. Wildlife Resource Agencies ............................................................................................. G-8 D. Committee Organization and Development of Guidelines ................................................... G-8 1. Committee Organization ................................................................................................. G-8 2. Development of Guidelines ............................................................................................ G-9 E. Relationship to National Planning Requirements and Guidance .......................................... G-9 F. Procedures for Revisions and
    [Show full text]
  • A Statistical Analysis of Marine Mammal Dispersal Routes Across Major Ocean Regions Using Beta Diversity at the Generic Level
    A Statistical Analysis of Marine Mammal Dispersal Routes Across Major Ocean Regions Using Beta Diversity at the Generic Level A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at George Mason University By Carlos Mauricio Peredo Bachelor of Science Seton Hill University, 2012 Director: Mark D. Uhen, Assistant Professor Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences Spring Semester 2015 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Copyright 2015 Carlos Mauricio Peredo All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION Dedicated to my wonderful parents, Mauricio and Julie Peredo, who left behind everything they knew and started fresh in a foreign land purely in the pursuit of a better life for their children; to my older brother Miguel, whose witty humor, eternal optimism, and fierce loyalty has kept my head above water and a smile on my face throughout countless tribulations; to my younger brother Julio, who has far surpassed us all in talent and intellect, and who inspires me to never stop learning; and most of all, to my loving wife Molly, who has never stopped believing in me and drives me to settle for nothing less than perfection. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. George, Lyons, and Parsons, for their tireless revisions and hard work on my behalf. I would like to thank George Mason University and the Smithsonian Institution for providing the support and inspiration for much of this project. I would like to thank the Paleobiology Database, and all of its contributors, for their ambitious vision and their relentless pursuit of its execution.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Park Science 19(1): Arctic Alaska Are Living at the Species’ Northern-Most to Identify Habitats Most Frequented by Bears and 4-9
    National Park Service US Department of the Interior Alaska Park Science Region 11, Alaska Below the Surface Fish and Our Changing Underwater World Volume 19, Issue 1 Noatak National Preserve Cape Krusenstern Gates of the Arctic Alaska Park Science National Monument National Park and Preserve Kobuk Valley Volume 19, Issue 1 National Park June 2020 Bering Land Bridge Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve National Preserve Denali National Wrangell-St Elias National Editorial Board: Park and Preserve Park and Preserve Leigh Welling Debora Cooper Grant Hilderbrand Klondike Gold Rush Jim Lawler Lake Clark National National Historical Park Jennifer Pederson Weinberger Park and Preserve Guest Editor: Carol Ann Woody Kenai Fjords Managing Editor: Nina Chambers Katmai National Glacier Bay National National Park Design: Nina Chambers Park and Preserve Park and Preserve Sitka National A special thanks to Sarah Apsens for her diligent Historical Park efforts in assembling articles for this issue. Her Aniakchak National efforts helped make this issue possible. Monument and Preserve Alaska Park Science is the semi-annual science journal of the National Park Service Alaska Region. Each issue highlights research and scholarship important to the stewardship of Alaska’s parks. Publication in Alaska Park Science does not signify that the contents reflect the views or policies of the National Park Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute National Park Service endorsement or recommendation. Alaska Park Science is found online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/alaskaparkscience/index.htm Table of Contents Below the Surface: Fish and Our Changing Environmental DNA: An Emerging Tool for Permafrost Carbon in Stream Food Webs of Underwater World Understanding Aquatic Biodiversity Arctic Alaska C.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter; Final Rule
    Thursday, October 8, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter; Final Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:03 Oct 07, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08OCR3.SGM 08OCR3 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3 51988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR northern sea otter, refer to the final published in the Federal Register on listing rule published in the Federal August 9, 2005 (70 FR 46366). Fish and Wildlife Service Register on August 9, 2005 (70 FR Summary of Comments and 46366), the proposed rule to designate Recommendations 50 CFR Part 17 critical habitat published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2008 (73 FR We requested written comments from [FWS–R7–ES–2008–0105; 92210–1117– the public during the public comment 0000–FY08–B4] 76454), and the June 9, 2009 (74 FR 27271), notice of availability of the draft period on the proposed rule to designate RIN 1018–AV92 economic analysis (DEA). More detailed critical habitat for the southwest Alaska information on northern sea otter DPS of the northern sea otter. During the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife biology and ecology that is directly public comment period, we also and Plants; Designation of Critical relevant to designation of critical habitat contacted appropriate Federal, State, Habitat for the Southwest Alaska is discussed under the Primary and local agencies; Alaska Native Distinct Population Segment of the Constituent Elements section below.
    [Show full text]
  • MAY^JUNE 1976 VOLUME 4, NUMBER 3 Scientific Notes And
    3 rpRvw\i*J 4iV V .JLU* A ' MAY^JUNE 1976 VOLUME 4, NUMBER 3 Scientific notes and summaries of investigations in geology, hydrology, and related fields OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR THOMAS S. KLEPPE, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government The Journal of Research is Correspondence and inquiries concerning the Printing Office, Washington, DC published every 2 months by the Journal (other than subscription inquiries and 20402. Annual subscription rate U.S. Geological Survey. It con­ address changes) should be directed to Anna M. $18.90 (plus $4.75 for foreign tains papers by members of the Orellana, Managing Editor, Journal of Research, mailing). Single copy $3.15. Geological Survey and their pro­ Publications Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Make checks or money orders fessional colleagues on geologic, 321 National Center, Reston, VA 22092. payable to the Superintendent of hydrologic, topographic, and Documents. other scientific and technical Papers for the Journal should be submitted Send all subscription inquiries subjects. through regular Division publication channels. and address changes to the Su­ perintendent of Documents at the above address. Purchase orders should not be The Secretary of the Interior has determined that the publication of this periodi­ sent to the U.S. Geological Sur­ cal is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this vey library. Department. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Library of Congress Catalog- Director of the Office of Management and Budget through June 30, 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Ecotone Dynamics in Southwest Alaska During the Late Quaternary Linda B
    Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 175}188 Vegetation ecotone dynamics in Southwest Alaska during the Late Quaternary Linda B. Brubaker! *, Patricia M. Anderson", Feng Sheng Hu# !College of Forest Resources, University of Washington Box 352100, Seattle WA 98195, USA "Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington Box 351360, Seattle WA 98195, USA #Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana IL 61801, USA Abstract To examine Late Quaternary vegetation change across the modern vegetation gradient from continuous boreal forest (central Alaska) to Betula shrub tundra (Bristol Bay region), pollen records from Idavain and Snipe Lakes are described and compared to those of four other sites in southwest Alaska. Major features of the vegetation history at Idavain Lake include herb-dominated tundra (ca. 14}12 ka BP), mixed herb/Betula shrub tundra (ca. 12}8 ka BP), and Alnus/Betula shrub tundra (8 ka BP to present). The Snipe Lake record reveals a brief period of herb tundra ('12 ka BP), Betula shrub tundra (ca. 12}8.5 ka BP), and Picea forest mixed with Alnus/Betula shrub tundra (ca. 8 ka BP to present). Comparisons with other pollen records indicate that southwest Alaska has been the location of major vegetation ecotones throughout the last 12 ka years. Northern areas have consistently been dominated by larger growth forms (shrubs or trees) than have southern areas. During the Betula period (12}8 ka BP), a dense Betula shrubland occupied central Alaska, changing to a mixed low-Betula shrub and herb tundra in the south. In the Alnus/Picea period (8 ka BP to present), Picea and Betula trees were more common to the north; Alnus and Betula shrubs more abundant to the south.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina Richardii), Under the U.S
    Before the Secretary of Commerce Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Dave Withrow Center for Biological Diversity 6 February 2020 i Notice of Petition Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected], [email protected] Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected] Petitioner: Kristin Carden, Oceans Program Scientist, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway #800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.844.7100 x327 Email: [email protected] On November 19, 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center, Petitioner) submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) a petition to list the Iliamna Lake population of eastern North Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). (See generally Center 2012.) On May 17, 2013, NMFS issued a positive 90- day finding “that the petition present[ed] substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petition action may be warranted” and initiated a status review. (78 Fed. Reg. 29,098 (May 17, 2013).). On November 17, 2016, NMFS issued a determination that listing was not warranted because “the seals in Iliamna Lake do not constitute a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA.” (81 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Assessment for Kyrgyzstan
    Biodiversity Assessment for Kyrgyzstan Task Order under the Biodiversity & Sustainable Forestry IQC (BIOFOR) USAID CONTRACT NUMBER: LAG-I-00-99-00014-00 SUBMITTED TO: USAID CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS MISSION, ALMATY, KAZAKHSTAN SUBMITTED BY: CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL INC. WASHINGTON, D.C. JUNE 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I INTRODUCTION I-1 SECTION II STATUS OF BIODIVERSITY II-1 A. Overview II-1 B. Major Ecoregions II-1 C. Species Diversity II-3 D. Agrobiodiversity II-5 E. Threats to Biodiversity II-6 F. Resource Trends II-7 SECTION III STATUS OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION III-1 A. Protected Areas III-1 B. Agriculture III-2 C. Forests III-2 D. Fisheries III-3 SECTION IV STRATEGIC AND POLICY FRAMEWORK IV-1 A. Institutional Framework IV-1 B. Legislative Framework IV-3 C. International Conventions and Agreements IV-5 D. Internationally Funded Programs IV-5 SECTION V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS V-1 SECTION VI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION VI-1 SECTION VII USAID/KYRGYZSTAN VII-1 A. Impact of USAID Program on Biodiversity VII-1 B. Recommendations VII-1 ANNEX A SECTIONS 117 AND 119 OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT A-1 ANNEX B SCOPE OF WORK B-1 ANNEX C LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED C-1 ANNEX D LISTS OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF KYRGYZSTAN D-1 ANNEX E MAP OF ECOSYSTEMS AND PROTECTED AREAS OF KYRGYZSTAN E-1 ANNEX F PROTECTED AREAS IN KYRGYZSTAN F-1 ANNEX G SCHEDULE OF TEAM VISITS G-1 ANNEX H INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES (FROM NBSAP) H-1 ANNEX I CENTRAL ASIA TRANSBOUNDARY BIODIVERSITY PROJECT I-1 ACRONYMS BEO Bureau Environmental Officer BIOFOR Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry BSAP Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan CAR Central Asian Republics CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CTO Contracting Technical Officer DC District of Columbia EE Europe and Eurasia FAA Foreign Assistance Act GEF Global Environment Fund GIS Geographic Information Systems GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation ha hectare I.A.
    [Show full text]