DOCSLIB.ORG

Representation of Important Bird Areas in the Series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Representation of Important Bird Areas in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas Paper addressing Resolution 5 (2015) request to: ‘provide an update to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on the extent to which these Important Bird Areas are, or should be, represented within the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA), in particular those areas that might qualify as “major colonies of breeding native birds”’. Harris, C.M., Lorenz, K. & Syposz, M. 22 February 2017 Financially supported by the Governments of New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom Representation of Important Bird Areas in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. Designation criteria ................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 ASPA designation criteria ......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 IBA designation criteria ............................................................................................................ 4 3. Current Status ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Current status of ASPAs ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Current status of IBAs ............................................................................................................... 7 3.3 IBAs represented in the current ASPA network ..................................................................... 11 3.4 IBAs not represented in the current ASPA network ............................................................... 15 3.4.1 Emperor penguin .................................................................................................. 16 3.4.2 Adélie penguin ...................................................................................................... 17 3.4.3 Chinstrap penguin ................................................................................................ 18 3.4.4 Gentoo penguin .................................................................................................... 19 3.4.5 Macaroni penguin ................................................................................................ 19 3.4.6 Imperial shag ........................................................................................................ 20 3.4.7 South polar skua ................................................................................................... 21 3.4.8 Southern giant petrel ........................................................................................... 22 3.4.9 Antarctic petrel ..................................................................................................... 23 3.4.10 Southern fulmar ................................................................................................... 24 4. Representation of IBAs in the ASPA network .......................................................................... 25 4.1 Method A: Using population numbers as a discriminator of ‘major colonies’. ..................... 25 4.2 Method B: Using species diversity as a discriminator of ‘major colonies’. ............................ 27 4.3 Method C: Using a combination of population numbers and species diversity as a discriminator of ‘major colonies’. .................................................................................................... 28 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 31 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 33 7. References ............................................................................................................................ 35 Appendix A: List of Important Bird Areas in Antarctica ................................................................ 39 Appendix B: List of all colonies identified through Method C ....................................................... 54 Appendix C: List of Important Bird Areas in Antarctica meeting criteria by Method...................... 56 Representation of Important Bird Areas in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas 1. Introduction Antarctic wide census data for several bird species have been published over a number of years. One of the first comprehensive penguin inventories was compiled by Croxall and Kirkwood (1979) for the Antarctic Peninsula, South Shetland, South Orkney and the South Sandwich islands. This work was built on to include the remainder of the Antarctic region in Woehler (1993), which compiled census information from more than 100 publications. More recently Fretwell et al. (2012) and Lynch & LaRue (2014) derived population numbers for Emperor and Adélie penguins using satellite imagery. It is recognised that populations derived from satellite observations can be subject to considerable error (e.g. Barber-Meyer et al. 2007; Fretwell et al. 2012; Schwaller et al. 2013; Lynch & LaRue 2014; Lynch & Schwaller 2014; Southwell et al in press). Antarctic-wide compilations have also been made for flying bird species: van Franeker et al. (1999) on breeding colonies of Antarctic petrel; Hodum et al. (2004, unpublished) on breeding colonies of Cape petrel; Creuwels et al. (2007) on breeding colonies of Southern fulmar; and Patterson et al. (2008) on breeding colonies of Southern giant petrel. Until now, no systematic appraisal of these Antarctic wide census data has been undertaken to consider which of these colonies are, or should be, included within the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA). Work recently completed to identify Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Antarctica (Harris et al. 2015) has enabled a further analysis of the bird population data to contribute towards answering these questions. The results of this initial analysis are reported in this paper. At the XXXVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) a Working Paper and Information Paper was presented by Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States describing the recently completed analysis identifying IBAs in Antarctica, defined as the area south of 60° South. The IBA initiative was developed through collaboration between BirdLife International and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) that started in 1998 and was recently renewed with the support of a number of Antarctic Treaty Parties and several charitable organisations. Following the presentation of the papers the ATCM adopted Resolution 5 (2015), which includes the recommendation to: request the Committee for Environmental Protection to provide an update to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on the extent to which these Important Bird Areas are, or should be, represented within the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA), in particular those areas that might qualify as “major colonies of breeding native birds”. This paper aims to address this recommendation by examining the representation of IBAs in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), and identifying those IBAs that might qualify as “major colonies of breeding native birds”. 2. Designation criteria Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and IBAs are designated according to different criteria, a summary of which is given below. Page 3 of 62 Representation of Important Bird Areas in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas 2.1 ASPA designation criteria As stated in Article 3 of Annex V of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an ASPA to protect outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness values, any combination of those values, or ongoing or planned scientific research. Furthermore, the article states that Parties should seek to include in the series of ASPAs, inter alia, ‘areas with important or unusual assemblages of species, including major colonies of breeding native birds or mammals’ 2.2 IBA designation criteria The global (Level A) IBA criteria were standardised for global application following extensive consultation amongst experts in the BirdLife International Partnership and related fields (Fishpool & Evans 2001) and are also used to identify IBAs in Antarctica. In some parts of the world additional criteria based on less stringent thresholds are used to identify IBAs of regional significance, although to date these have not been used in Antarctica. The following definitions of the IBA selection criteria are based on Fishpool & Evans (2001) and were applied in Antarctica: A1: Globally threatened species. “The site is known or thought regularly to hold significant numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern”. The site qualifies if it is known, estimated or thought to hold a population of a species categorized by the IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU). In general, the regular presence of a CR or EN species, irrespective of population size, at a site may be sufficient for a site to qualify as an IBA. For VU species, the presence
Recommended publications
  • University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan GEOLOGY of the SCOTT GLACIER and WISCONSIN RANGE AREAS, CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA

    University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan GEOLOGY of the SCOTT GLACIER and WISCONSIN RANGE AREAS, CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA

    This dissertation has been /»OOAOO m icrofilm ed exactly as received MINSHEW, Jr., Velon Haywood, 1939- GEOLOGY OF THE SCOTT GLACIER AND WISCONSIN RANGE AREAS, CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1967 Geology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan GEOLOGY OF THE SCOTT GLACIER AND WISCONSIN RANGE AREAS, CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Velon Haywood Minshew, Jr. B.S., M.S, The Ohio State University 1967 Approved by -Adviser Department of Geology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report covers two field seasons in the central Trans- antarctic Mountains, During this time, the Mt, Weaver field party consisted of: George Doumani, leader and paleontologist; Larry Lackey, field assistant; Courtney Skinner, field assistant. The Wisconsin Range party was composed of: Gunter Faure, leader and geochronologist; John Mercer, glacial geologist; John Murtaugh, igneous petrclogist; James Teller, field assistant; Courtney Skinner, field assistant; Harry Gair, visiting strati- grapher. The author served as a stratigrapher with both expedi­ tions . Various members of the staff of the Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, as well as some specialists from the outside were consulted in the laboratory studies for the pre­ paration of this report. Dr. George E. Moore supervised the petrographic work and critically reviewed the manuscript. Dr. J. M. Schopf examined the coal and plant fossils, and provided information concerning their age and environmental significance. Drs. Richard P. Goldthwait and Colin B. B. Bull spent time with the author discussing the late Paleozoic glacial deposits, and reviewed portions of the manuscript.
  • A NEWS BULLETIN Published Quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC)

    A NEWS BULLETIN Published Quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC)

    A NEWS BULLETIN published quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC) An English-born Post Office technician, Robin Hodgson, wearing a borrowed kilt, plays his pipes to huskies on the sea ice below Scott Base. So far he has had a cool response to his music from his New Zealand colleagues, and a noisy reception f r o m a l l 2 0 h u s k i e s . , „ _ . Antarctic Division photo Registered at Post Ollice Headquarters. Wellington. New Zealand, as a magazine. II '1.7 ^ I -!^I*"JTr -.*><\\>! »7^7 mm SOUTH GEORGIA, SOUTH SANDWICH Is- . C I R C L E / SOUTH ORKNEY Is x \ /o Orcadas arg Sanae s a Noydiazarevskaya ussr FALKLAND Is /6Signyl.uK , .60"W / SOUTH AMERICA tf Borga / S A A - S O U T H « A WEDDELL SHETLAND^fU / I s / Halley Bav3 MINING MAU0 LAN0 ENOERBY J /SEA uk'/COATS Ld / LAND T> ANTARCTIC ••?l\W Dr^hnaya^^General Belgrano arg / V ^ M a w s o n \ MAC ROBERTSON LAND\ '■ aust \ /PENINSULA' *\4- (see map betowi jrV^ Sobldl ARG 90-w {■ — Siple USA j. Amundsen-Scott / queen MARY LAND {Mirny ELLSWORTH" LAND 1, 1 1 °Vostok ussr MARIE BYRD L LAND WILKES LAND ouiiiv_. , ROSS|NZJ Y/lnda^Z / SEA I#V/VICTORIA .TERRE , **•»./ LAND \ /"AOELIE-V Leningradskaya .V USSR,-'' \ --- — -"'BALLENYIj ANTARCTIC PENINSULA 1 Tenitnte Matianzo arg 2 Esptrarua arg 3 Almirarrta Brown arc 4PttrtlAHG 5 Otcipcion arg 6 Vtcecomodoro Marambio arg * ANTARCTICA 7 Arturo Prat chile 8 Bernardo O'Higgins chile 1000 Miles 9 Prasid«fTtB Frei chile s 1000 Kilometres 10 Stonington I.
  • Chinstrap Penguin Declines

    Chinstrap Penguin Declines

    Author's personal copy Polar Biol DOI 10.1007/s00300-012-1230-3 ORIGINAL PAPER First direct, site-wide penguin survey at Deception Island, Antarctica, suggests significant declines in breeding chinstrap penguins Ron Naveen • Heather J. Lynch • Steven Forrest • Thomas Mueller • Michael Polito Received: 18 April 2012 / Revised: 25 July 2012 / Accepted: 31 July 2012 Ó Springer-Verlag 2012 Abstract Deception Island (62°570S, 60°380W) is one of 1986/1987. A comparative analysis of high-resolution satel- the most frequently visited locations in Antarctica, prompt- lite imagery for the 2002/2003 and the 2009/2010 seasons ing speculation that tourism may have a negative impact suggests a 39 % (95th percentile CI = 6–71 %) decline on the island’s breeding chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis (from 85,473 ± 23,352 to 52,372 ± 14,309 breeding pairs) antarctica). Discussions regarding appropriate management over that 7-year period and provides independent confirma- of Deception Island and its largest penguin colony at Baily tion of population decline in the abundance of breeding Head have thus far operated in the absence of concrete chinstrap penguins at Baily Head. The decline in chinstrap information regarding the current size of the penguin popu- penguins at Baily Head is consistent with declines in this lation at Deception Island or long-term changes in abun- species throughout the region, including sites that receive dance. In the first ever field census of individual penguin little or no tourism; as a consequence of regional environ- nests at Deception Island (December 2–14, 2011), we find mental changes that currently represent the dominant influ- 79,849 breeding pairs of chinstrap penguins, including ence on penguin dynamics, we cannot ascribe any direct link 50,408 breeding pairs at Baily Head and 19,177 breeding between chinstrap declines and tourism from this study.
  • Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No 151

    Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No 151

    Measure 5 (2019) Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No 151 Lions Rump, King George Island, South Shetland Islands Introduction Lions Rump (62º08’S; 58º07’W) is located on the southwestern coast of King George Island, South Shetland Islands, covering approximately 1.32 km2 in area. The Area takes its name from the distinctive rocky hill lying between the southern extremity of King George Bay and Lions Cove. The Area was originally designated as Site of Special Scientific Interest No 34 through Recommendation XVI-2 (1991, SSSI No 34) after a proposal by Poland on the grounds that it contains diverse biota and geological features and is a representative example of the terrestrial, limnological, and littoral habitats of the maritime Antarctic. The Area was designated primarily to protect its ecological values. It is also valuable as a reference site with diverse avian and mammalian Antarctic fauna, against which disturbance at sites situated near locations of human activity can be measured. A revised Management Plan was adopted in Measure 1 (2000). The site was re-designated ASPA No 151 in Decision 1 (2002). A second revised Management Plan was adopted in Measure 11 (2013). Based on the Environmental Domains Analysis for Antarctica (Resolution 3 (2008)) ASPA No 151 lies within Environment A (Antarctic Peninsula northern geologic), which is a small, terrestrial environment around the northern Antarctic Peninsula consisting entirely of ice-free land cover and sedimentary geology (Morgan et al. 2007). Other protected areas containing Domain A include ASPA No 111, ASPA No 128 and ASMA No 1 (Morgan et al.
  • Amanda Bay, Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica

    Amanda Bay, Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica

    MEASURE 3 - ANNEX Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No 169 AMANDA BAY, INGRID CHRISTENSEN COAST, PRINCESS ELIZABETH LAND, EAST ANTARCTICA Introduction Amanda Bay is located on the Ingrid Christensen Coast of Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica at 69°15' S, 76°49’59.9" E. (Map A). The Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) is designated to protect the breeding colony of several thousand pairs of emperor penguins annually resident in the south-west corner of Amanda Bay, while providing for continued collection of valuable long- term research and monitoring data and comparative studies with colonies elsewhere in East Antarctica. Only two other emperor penguin colonies along the extensive East Antarctic coastline are protected within ASPAs (ASPA 120, Point Géologie Archipelago and ASPA 167 Haswell Island). Amanda Bay is more easily accessed, from vessels or by vehicle from research stations in the Larsemann Hills and Vestfold Hills, than many other emperor penguin colonies in East Antarctica. This accessibility is advantageous for research purposes, but also creates the potential for human disturbance of the birds. The Antarctic coastline in the vicinity of Amanda Bay was first sighted and named the Ingrid Christensen Coast by Captain Mikkelsen in command of the Norwegian ship Thorshavn on 20 February 1935. Oblique aerial photographs of the coastline were taken by the Lars Christensen expedition in 1937 and by the US Operation Highjump in 1947 for reconnaissance purposes. In the 1954/55 summer, the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition (ANARE) on the Kista Dan explored the waters of Prydz Bay, and the first recorded landing in the area was made by a sledging party led by Dr.
  • Species Status Assessment Emperor Penguin (Aptenodytes Fosteri)

    Species Status Assessment Emperor Penguin (Aptenodytes Fosteri)

    SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT EMPEROR PENGUIN (APTENODYTES FOSTERI) Emperor penguin chicks being socialized by male parents at Auster Rookery, 2008. Photo Credit: Gary Miller, Australian Antarctic Program. Version 1.0 December 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Program Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species Falls Church, Virginia Acknowledgements: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Penguins are flightless birds that are highly adapted for the marine environment. The emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) is the tallest and heaviest of all living penguin species. Emperors are near the top of the Southern Ocean’s food chain and primarily consume Antarctic silverfish, Antarctic krill, and squid. They are excellent swimmers and can dive to great depths. The average life span of emperor penguin in the wild is 15 to 20 years. Emperor penguins currently breed at 61 colonies located around Antarctica, with the largest colonies in the Ross Sea and Weddell Sea. The total population size is estimated at approximately 270,000–280,000 breeding pairs or 625,000–650,000 total birds. Emperor penguin depends upon stable fast ice throughout their 8–9 month breeding season to complete the rearing of its single chick. They are the only warm-blooded Antarctic species that breeds during the austral winter and therefore uniquely adapted to its environment. Breeding colonies mainly occur on fast ice, close to the coast or closely offshore, and amongst closely packed grounded icebergs that prevent ice breaking out during the breeding season and provide shelter from the wind. Sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean has undergone considerable inter-annual variability over the last 40 years, although with much greater inter-annual variability in the five sectors than for the Southern Ocean as a whole.
  • Emperor Island, Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula

    Emperor Island, Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula

    From Measure 1 (2002) Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 107 EMPEROR ISLAND, DION ISLANDS, MARGUERITE BAY, ANTARCTIC PENINSULA 1. Description of values to be protected The Dion Islands (Latitude 67°52’ S, Longitude 68°42’ W), on the western side of the central Antarctic Peninsula in north-western Marguerite Bay, were originally designated as Specially Protected Area (SPA) No. 8 through Recommendation IV-8 in 1966 after a proposal by the United Kingdom. All of the islands in the Dion Islands archipelago were included. Values protected under the original designation were described as the presence of the only colony of emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) known to exist on the west side of the Antarctic Peninsula and that the isolation of this colony from others of the same species makes it of outstanding scientific interest. A management plan for the Area was adopted through Recommendation XVI-6 (1990), which reaffirmed the values of the Area. The boundaries were extended to include the intervening sea between the islands to ensure protection of the emperors at sea or on sea-ice in the immediate vicinity. Attention was drawn to the additional important value of the colony being one of only two known in which breeding occurs on land. It was also noted as the most northerly and probably the smallest of Emperor colonies, with annual numbers fluctuating around 150 pairs. The values of the emperor penguin colony are reaffirmed in this revised management plan. The boundaries of the Area are now defined more precisely.
  • Antarctic Primer

    Antarctic Primer

    Antarctic Primer By Nigel Sitwell, Tom Ritchie & Gary Miller By Nigel Sitwell, Tom Ritchie & Gary Miller Designed by: Olivia Young, Aurora Expeditions October 2018 Cover image © I.Tortosa Morgan Suite 12, Level 2 35 Buckingham Street Surry Hills, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia To anyone who goes to the Antarctic, there is a tremendous appeal, an unparalleled combination of grandeur, beauty, vastness, loneliness, and malevolence —all of which sound terribly melodramatic — but which truly convey the actual feeling of Antarctica. Where else in the world are all of these descriptions really true? —Captain T.L.M. Sunter, ‘The Antarctic Century Newsletter ANTARCTIC PRIMER 2018 | 3 CONTENTS I. CONSERVING ANTARCTICA Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic Antarctica’s Historic Heritage South Georgia Biosecurity II. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Antarctica The Southern Ocean The Continent Climate Atmospheric Phenomena The Ozone Hole Climate Change Sea Ice The Antarctic Ice Cap Icebergs A Short Glossary of Ice Terms III. THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Life in Antarctica Adapting to the Cold The Kingdom of Krill IV. THE WILDLIFE Antarctic Squids Antarctic Fishes Antarctic Birds Antarctic Seals Antarctic Whales 4 AURORA EXPEDITIONS | Pioneering expedition travel to the heart of nature. CONTENTS V. EXPLORERS AND SCIENTISTS The Exploration of Antarctica The Antarctic Treaty VI. PLACES YOU MAY VISIT South Shetland Islands Antarctic Peninsula Weddell Sea South Orkney Islands South Georgia The Falkland Islands South Sandwich Islands The Historic Ross Sea Sector Commonwealth Bay VII. FURTHER READING VIII. WILDLIFE CHECKLISTS ANTARCTIC PRIMER 2018 | 5 Adélie penguins in the Antarctic Peninsula I. CONSERVING ANTARCTICA Antarctica is the largest wilderness area on earth, a place that must be preserved in its present, virtually pristine state.
  • Avian Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula

    Avian Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula

    Measure 2 (2013) Annex Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 117 AVIAN ISLAND, MARGUERITE BAY, ANTARCTIC PENINSULA Introduction The primary reason for the designation of Avian Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula (67°46'S, 68°54'W; 0.49 km2) as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) is to protect environmental values and primarily the abundance and diversity of breeding seabirds on the island. Avian Island is situated in northwestern Marguerite Bay, 400 m south of Adelaide Island on the western side of the central Antarctic Peninsula. It was originally designated as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) No. 30 under Recommendation XV-6 in 1989 after a proposal by the United Kingdom. Included was the island together with its littoral zone, but excluded was a small area near a refuge on the northwestern coast of the island. Values protected under the original designation were described as the abundance and diversity of breeding seabirds present on the island, that the southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus) colony is one of the most southerly known breeding population of this species, and that the blue-eyed cormorants (Phalacrocorax atriceps) are breeding close to the southern limit of their range. The Area was therefore considered of outstanding ornithological importance, meriting protection from unnecessary human disturbance. Designation as an SSSI was terminated with redesignation of Avian Island as a Specially Protected Area (SPA) through Recommendation XVI-4 (1991, SPA No. 21) after a proposal by the United Kingdom. The boundaries were similar to the original SSSI, but included the entire island and the littoral zone without the exclusion zone near the refuge on the northwestern coast.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 78/Tuesday, April 23, 2019/Rules

    Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 78/Tuesday, April 23, 2019/Rules

    Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 16791 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require Agricultural commodities, Pesticides SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The any special considerations under and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as Executive Order 12898, entitled requirements. amended (‘‘ACA’’) (16 U.S.C. 2401, et ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Dated: April 12, 2019. seq.) implements the Protocol on Environmental Justice in Minority Environmental Protection to the Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Populations and Low-Income Antarctic Treaty (‘‘the Protocol’’). Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Annex V contains provisions for the 1994). Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is protection of specially designated areas Since tolerances and exemptions that amended as follows: specially managed areas and historic are established on the basis of a petition sites and monuments. Section 2405 of under FFDCA section 408(d), such as PART 180—[AMENDED] title 16 of the ACA directs the Director the tolerance exemption in this action, of the National Science Foundation to ■ do not require the issuance of a 1. The authority citation for part 180 issue such regulations as are necessary proposed rule, the requirements of the continues to read as follows: and appropriate to implement Annex V Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. to the Protocol. et seq.) do not apply. ■ 2. Add § 180.1365 to subpart D to read The Antarctic Treaty Parties, which This action directly regulates growers, as follows: includes the United States, periodically food processors, food handlers, and food adopt measures to establish, consolidate retailers, not States or tribes.
  • The Antarctic Treaty

    The Antarctic Treaty

    Miscellaneous No. 7 (2007) The Antarctic Treaty Measures adopted at the Twenty-ninth Consultative Meeting held at Edinburgh 12 – 23 June 2006 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2007 Cm 7167 £17.00 Miscellaneous No. 7 (2007) The Antarctic Treaty Measures adopted at the Twenty-ninth Consultative Meeting held at Edinburgh 12 – 23 June 2006 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2007 Cm 7167 £17.00 © Crown copyright 2007 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to the Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected] MEASURES ADOPTED AT THE TWENTY-NINTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING HELD AT EDINBURGH 12 - 23 JUNE 2006 The Measures1 adopted at the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting are reproduced below from the Final Report of the Meeting. In accordance with Article IX, paragraph 4, of the Antarctic Treaty, the Measures adopted at Consultative Meetings become effective upon approval by all Contracting Parties whose representatives were entitled to participate in the meeting at which they were adopted (i.e.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 183/Tuesday, September 22, 2015

    Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 183/Tuesday, September 22, 2015

    Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 183 / Tuesday, September 22, 2015 / Notices 57237 directed by the Antarctic Conservation Dates: 1 December 2015 through 30 modification request and has Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–541), as June 2016. determined that the amendment is not amended by the Antarctic Science, a material change to the permit, and it Nadene G. Kennedy, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, will have a less than a minor or Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of transitory impact. has developed regulations for the Polar Programs. establishment of a permit system for [FR Doc. 2015–24005 Filed 9–21–15; 8:45 am] The permit modification was issued on various activities in Antarctica and September 16, 2015. BILLING CODE 7555–01–P designation of certain animals and Nadene G. Kennedy, certain geographic areas a requiring Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of special protection. The regulations NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Polar Programs. establish such a permit system to [FR Doc. 2015–24000 Filed 9–21–15; 8:45 am] designate Antarctic Specially Protected Notice of Permit Modification Received BILLING CODE 7555–01–P Areas. Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 Application Details NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AGENCY: National Science Foundation. Permit Application: 2015–012 ACTION: Notice of Permit Modification Notice of Permit Applications Received 1. Applicant: Dr. Stephanie Jenourvrier, Request Received and Permit Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act Woods Hole Oceanographic under the Antarctic Conservation Act of of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541) Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02453. 1978, Public Law 95–541. AGENCY: National Science Foundation. Activity for Which Permit is SUMMARY: The National Science ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Requested: The applicant intends to Foundation (NSF) is required to publish Received under the Antarctic collect a multi-scale and temporal a notice of requests to modify permits Conservation Act of 1978, (Pub.