3/17/12

Recent sightings of a gray whale and her infant calf swimming near Alcatraz and Sausalito in San Francisco Bay illuminated a likely repercussion of melting polar ice, scientists said.

Gray whales normally mate in the tropical lagoons of Baja California in the winter, migrate north to chilly polar waters to feed on shrimp-like prey that blanket ocean floors in the spring and summer, and return to Mexico the following winter to give birth in the lagoons, where the young are protected from sharks and orcas that hunt in the open ocean.

But the relatively small size of the calf that followed its wayward mother into the Bay — about that of a newborn, which is 15 feet — indicated that its mother calved as she migrated south along the coastline — just as others of her kind are heading north for the summer feeding grounds.

“We’re seeing more and more calves born before they get all the way down to Mexico,” said Wayne Perryman, leader of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s cetacean health and life history program at the agency’s office in La Jolla.

Researchers have been cataloguing changes in the population’s feeding and migration patterns. Some changes are thought to be the result of climate change, while others are linked to the recovery of the species from overhunting.

Perryman said gray whales, including pregnant cows, are leaving polar waters later than was the case 15 to 20 years ago, and he is testing reasons for the shift.

As ice sheets retreat northward, the whales might be taking longer to reach their food before they turn south again. Or perhaps they cannot find enough food in time to keep to traditional schedules.

“Gray whales are feeding farther and farther north,” Perryman said. “Their primary feeding grounds have shifted.”

Delayed migrations and open-ocean calving are not the only changes detected in the population, which has recovered to a population of more than 20,000 since hunting of the whales was outlawed in the 1940s.

Some gray whales have begun feeding off the northern Californian coastline, pursuing different prey than is found in polar waters, according to James Harvey, interim director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.

Meanwhile, the population appears to be relearning direct migration routes that were forgotten when many of the giant mammals were slaughtered by whalers.

The whales have learned to go west around the Channel Islands off Southern California, instead of hugging the coast, and new research led by Harvey shows that they have resumed direct routes between the Point Reyes and San Francisco peninsulas, bypassing the mouth of the Bay.

“The more shortcuts you can take, the shorter the time you’re migrating and the less energy you’re using,” Harvey said.

Harvey said the wayward mother in the bay, meanwhile, was probably hugging the coast to protect her infant from predators when she accidentally followed the shoreline into San Francisco Bay.

“If you’re a female with a calf,” Harvey said, “the best thing to do is swim really close to the coastline.”

Read Original Article 

Sonar testing occurring off Washington coast

3/18/12

U.S. Navy representatives are holding a public meeting in Eureka on Thursday to gather public comment a Northwest training and test­ing project that would engage in sonar testing off the coast of Washington.

The original project — the subject of a suit filed by public interest law firm Earthjustice — only focused on training and drew concern from local residents because it included waters off the North Coast. The expanded project now includes the testing of various equipment and vessels.

Liane Nakahara, a public affairs specialist with the Navy, said scientific experts will be present Thursday to discuss concerns and infor­mation with residents. The meeting is scheduled for 5 to 8 p.m. at the Wharfinger Building, 1 Marina Way.

The Navy’s Northwest Training Range Complex has been in use since World War II. It is about 122,000 nautical square miles, stretching from the Olympic Peninsula in Washington to approximately the northern border of Men­docino County.

Nakahara said the sonar testing, which advocates said will harm marine mammals, will occur off the coast of Washington. All training in the southern part of the range occurs out beyond 12 nautical miles.

“You won’t see that out in California,” she said. “If any­thing, the ships will be transit­ing down past your area to San Diego or elsewhere.” The Navy is currently holding public meetings up and down the West Coast to gather input for a draft environmental impact statement and expects to release the draft in fall 2013. The comment period closes on April 27.

The environmental analy­sis looks at both training and testing. The National Marine Fisheries Service issued a permit for the training proj­ect in 2010, but the Navy is re-doing its environmental analysis of the project before the 2015 expiration date in preparation of a renewal, Nakahara said, adding that the Navy decided to include analysis for the testing activi­ties to reduce costs.

According to the Navy, ship-mounted mid-frequen­cy sonar would be used for a maximum of 108 hours a year. The Navy is not permit­ted to kill any marine mam­mals, but 13 incidences of injury to whales are expected each year. According to the Navy, 99 percent of the effects of sonar would dis­turb whales’ behavior. To mitigate the harm caused by sonar, the Navy establishes lookouts who watch for signs of whales.

When Navy lookouts spot whales within 1,000 yards of a ship using sonar, the sonar is required to be powered down, and if whales come within 200 yards, it must be immediately turned off.

The sonar testing is a key component of the Earthjus­tice lawsuit, which was filed against the fisheries service for issuing the Navy’s 2010 permit.

According to Earthjustice, marine mammals have been stranded or stopped feeding after being exposed to mid­frequency sonar.

Earthjustice attorney Steve Mashuda — who is repre­senting the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Coun­cil, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the San Juans, Natural Resources Defense Council, and People For Puget Sound — said placing lookouts on ship decks with binoculars is not enough. He said mammals do not always surface, even if they are in the area.

“Our case is aimed at the fisheries service for failing to take some — what we think are very reasonable and com­mon sense — mitigations measures to ensure that their activities don’t harm whales and other marine mam­mals,” Mashuda said.

A National Marine Fish­eries Service spokesman said the agency does not com­ment on ongoing lawsuits.

Mashuda said the service should have added restric­tions to when the Navy can conduct their activities based on known mammal migration schedules or where marine sanctuaries are located.

According to Mashuda, the suit’s next day in court is scheduled for May 15 before U.S. Magistrate Nandor Vadas in Eureka.

Comments on the training and testing project’s environ­mental impact statement can be made online at www. nwtteis.com, or sent to Naval Facilities Engineering Com­mand, Northwest, ATTN: Mrs. Kimberly Kler — NWTT Project Manager, 1101 Tautog Circle, Sil­verdale, WA 98315-1100.

Read Original Article

For more info: Earthjustice and Others Challenge NMFS Regulation of Navy Sonar Activity

3/12/12

For the first time ever, the nation’s largest group of food retail companies has spoken out on behalf of protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay fishery—the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon fishery. The Food Marketing Institute (FMI), which represents 26,000 retail food stores, and $680 billion in annual revenue—three-quarters of U.S. retail food store sales—announced its support for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study currently underway to determine the suitability of large-scale development in Bristol Bay, including the Pebble Mine.

“Since Bristol Bay is one of the world’s largest sustainable salmon fisheries, it plays an important role in the supply chains of a number of our wholesale and retail members,” said Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel for the Food Marketing Institute in a letter to the EPA.

“We look forward to reading the preliminary report expected to be released in the next few months and hope it will reflect our own belief in the importance of continuing to preserve and responsibly manage this extraordinary natural resource,” the letter further stated.

The watershed assessment, expected in April 2012, was initiated by the EPA in response to requests from the Bristol Bay commercial fishing industry and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, who oppose the Pebble Project due to the risks to the fishery. They petitioned the EPA to use its authority under Section 404c of the Clean Water Act to restrict the disposal of mine waste into Bristol Bay’s pristine waters, if science shows that it will harm the salmon fishery. The EPA study is expected to provide the scientific basis on which the agency can take further protective action under 404c.

The Bristol Bay salmon fishery is the economic engine for the region, generating $318 to $573 million in annual revenue, and roughly 10,000 jobs.

“Food retail stores have a real stake in the long-term sustainability of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery because it is a vital part of our nation’s food supply. We applaud the Food Marketing Institute and the 1,500 retailers it represents for their support of this unique resource,” said Bonnie Gestring of the conservation organization, Earthworks.

“Bristol Bay is the lifeblood of our industry. Our fishermen are proud of the sustainably harvested wild salmon that we provide to the nation, and we appreciate the Food Marketing Institute’s support for this important scientific assessment,” said Bob Waldrop, director of the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association (BBRSDA), which represents approximately 2,000 Bristol Bay commercial fishermen.

“Investors representing $170 billion in assets have expressed similar support to the EPA and we are delighted to see an industry association as important as FMI speak up as well,” added Jonas Kron, vice president of Trillium Asset Management.

The Pebble Mine is proposed by a 50:50 joint venture between UK-based Anglo American plc (LSE:AAL)(JSE:ANGLO) and Canadian company Northern Dynasty.

A 2010 ecological risk assessment commissioned by The Nature Conservancy studied the impacts of large-scale mining in Bristol Bay watershed, and concluded that the risks to wild salmon populations are “very high.”

Read More 

3/12/12

MONTAGUE, Calif. - An environmental group is threatening to sue a water district in this Siskiyou County community, claiming that operation of a roughly 90-year-old dam is causing losses of federally listed coho salmon.

The Orleans, Calif.-based Klamath Riverkeeper, which was a party in an earlier lawsuit over water diversions by ranchers in the county, has given the Montague Water Conservation District 60 days to come up with a solution for imperiled fish.

The group believes Dwinnell Dam, which creates the Shastina Reservoir and provides water for agricultural and residential customers, has caused a loss of 20 percent of habitat for coho in the Shasta River since it was built in the 1920s, said Erica Terence, the group's executive director.

"That's an important amount of habitat," Terence said. "It's difficult to deny that after the dam was built, the coho population went into a steep decline. Only one out of three generations of coho that come back to spawn in the Shasta River is considered biologically viable."

Terence said the district is violating the Endangered Species Act by failing to obtain incidental take permits for the salmon. She said the group wants the district to either remove the dam or build a fish passage and take other measures to protect the coho.

"We did feel it was necessary to put them on notice," Terence said, adding she hopes the issue is settled out of court. "They had at least 15 years of operating this dam since coho salmon were put on the endangered species list as threatened."

Lisa Faris, the Montague water district's office manager, said she would wait to comment until after its board discussed the issue at its regularly scheduled March 13 meeting.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is taking no enforcement actions against the district, said Don Flickinger, the agency's natural resources management specialist in Yreka, Calif. However, if the dam's operation is resulting in the taking of coho, the district does need to contact the agency about permits, he said.

"If the water district makes a good faith effort to contact (NMFS), that would be a good way of working together to find ways of avoiding that kind of take," Flickinger said.

Klamath Riverkeeper's notice of intent to sue, which it issued March 12, is only the latest in a series of skirmishes between environmental groups and landowners over the use of water from the Shasta and Scott rivers, which are key tributaries of the Klamath River. Already, environmentalists and the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau have separately sued the California Department of Fish and Game over how it enforces rules regarding water diversions from the two rivers.

Dwinnell Dam is not one of the four dams suggested for removal under the Klamath Basin agreement.

For more info, visit Klamath Riverkeeper at http://www.klamathriver.org/

Read Original Article