Petition to List Lynn Canal Pacific Herring under the Endangered ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IV. ANALYSIS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING FACTORS Under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1), NMFS is required to list a species for protection if it is in danger of extinction or threatened by possible extinction in all or a significant portion of its range. In making such a determination, NMFS must analyze the species’ status in light of five statutory listing factors. They are as follows: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting it continued existence. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E); A species is “endangered” if it is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” due to one or more of the five listing factors. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(6). A species is “threatened” if it is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. 1531(20). Under the ESA, a “species” includes any species, subspecies or “distinct population segment” of a vertebrate species. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). As explained in Section III, the Lynn Canal Herring population qualifies as a distinct population segment and is therefore a “species” under the ESA. The following analysis presents substantial information that A. Present and Threatened Destruction, Modification or Curtailment of Habitat or Range Herring require several distinct habitat types, and probably the most important is spawning habitat, which occurs in shallow inter-tidal and sub-tidal areas containing eelgrass, kelp and other structural components. Spawning grounds are incredibly fragile and easily affected by human activities. Once herring lose spawning grounds or fail to use historic spawning areas, they are virtually certain not to return. As presented earlier in Section Three, Lynn Canal Herring have declined from most of their historic spawning areas throughout the Lynn Canal, Auke Bay, Berners Bay and Icy Strait areas. The past destruction of herring spawning grounds in Lynn Canal and adjacent areas has already been reduced from over 30 miles to around 3 miles. The 40
present and threatened destruction, modification and curtailment of spawning areas will further restrict the habitat and range for Lynn Canal Herring. A species profile of Pacific Herring prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lassuy (1989), concluded that herring do not re-colonize spawning beds once they are lost. One rather surprising generalization made by Cushing (1985) was that ‘management of herring stocks based on a great expenditure of research has not been very successful.’ In view of such management difficulties, the very basic concerns of others take on a special importance – especially with respect to coastal development policy. I refer to the statement by Trumble (1983) that ‘there is no clear instance of a stock successfully moving its spawning area as a result of destruction or major alteration of their original spawning area.’ A study of transplantation of eggs concluded that though eggs hatched, a new spawning population did not become established (Hay and Marliave 1988). Clearly, the maintenance of vegetation is a valid concern. Also pertinent to the maintenance of functional spawning grounds is the avoidance of activities (e.g. dredging) which would cause silting immediately before, during, and two to three months following the spawning season. The inhibition of spawning behavior, suffocation of eggs, and destruction of product quality were mentioned earlier. It also seems likely to me that a heavy loading of suspended sediment would be ingested of feeding inhibited during a period critical to the nutrition of both adult and newly hatched larvae. Boehlert and Morgan (1985) noted that sediment at ‘low suspension levels’ roughly equivalent to natural conditions actually enhanced larval feeding abilities. Higher loads, as might be expected in catastrophic events, inhibited feeding. (Lassuy 1989). This sobering assessment implicate the destruction of spawning grounds as a major factor in herring declines. In the case of Lynn Canal Herring, several researchers have noted that the destruction of spawning beds in Auke Bay is a major factor in the population’s decline. Another factor widely cited by regional experts has been the progressive deterioration of shoreline habitats that were historically used by Lynn Canal herring as spawning areas. Auke Bay, which was once a major spawning area for the Lynn Canal stock, has been increasingly subjected to the cumulative effects of shoreline development and human use since the 1980s. These impacts include construction of a floating breakwater, docks and marinas for commercial and recreational vessels, fueling depots, sewage and waste treatment discharges, and ferry terminal expansion. In addition, current proposals include the development of a seafood processing plant. The historic extent of eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds once used by herring as spawning habitat have also declined in the bay over time (personal communication, Sue Walker, NMFS). Though direct evidence for 41
Page 1 and 2: BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE PE
Page 3 and 4: NOTICE OF PETITION Carlos M. Gutier
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.....
Page 7 and 8: V. Vulnerability to Extinction ....
Page 9 and 10: INTRODUCTION The Lynn Canal populat
Page 11 and 12: define Pacific Herring along North
Page 13 and 14: Lynn Canal Herring Figure 4: Major
Page 15 and 16: Herring schools concentrated at 52
Page 17 and 18: e) Larval and Juvenile Rearing Habi
Page 19 and 20: For a comparison, Abookire et al. (
Page 21 and 22: II. ABUNDANCE AND TREND OF LYNN CAN
Page 23 and 24: Cascade Point and adjacent areas of
Page 25 and 26: (ADFG 2005-Juneau Update #10). A su
Page 27 and 28: Skud (1959) Table 1: Spawning beach
Page 29 and 30: A single DPS that includes the popu
Page 31 and 32: Leon (1993) detected statistically
Page 33 and 34: (USFWS-NMFS 1980: 7). Carlson showe
Page 35 and 36: tolerance optima. Locally different
Page 37 and 38: Sockeye Salmon, Waples et al. (1991
Page 39 and 40: themselves. Likewise, Lynn Canal He
Page 41 and 42: definable area (Booke, 1981); and (
Page 43 and 44: Based on the results of the present
Page 45 and 46: eflect recent colonization historie
Page 47: demonstration of monophyly, which a
Page 51 and 52: supplies to and from the mine. The
Page 53 and 54: (NMFS 2005: 107). a) Contamination
Page 55 and 56: 2. Juneau Access Improvement Projec
Page 57 and 58: (Holmberg 1996). The Field Supervis
Page 59 and 60: Figure 11: Cumulative impacts of de
Page 61 and 62: A NMFS species profile for Pacific
Page 63 and 64: The unifying feature between two di
Page 65 and 66: net air-sea CO2 exchange, fishery y
Page 67 and 68: population’s reproductive potenti
Page 69 and 70: Described sounds fall into three ca
Page 71 and 72: The ESA requires the NMFS to use th
Page 73 and 74: Blejwas, K.M. and E.A. Mathews. 200
Page 75 and 76: Hay, D.E., P.B. McCarter, and K.S.
Page 77 and 78: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marin
Page 79 and 80: Defining and implementing best avai
Page 81 and 82: analysis showed that over 99% of th
Page 83 and 84: One important result of this study
Page 85 and 86: Esquimault Harbour / Portage Inlet
Page 87 and 88: studies. However, beyond the genera

Petition to List Lynn Canal Pacific Herring under the Endangered ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?