A Whale\u27s Tale: Efforts To Save The Cook Inlet, Alaska Beluga Whale

In 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) became concerned about the status of the beluga whale in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) data indicated that the estimated population of beluga whales in the Cook Inlet region had been declining since 1994. Results from annual surveys in 1998 revealed that the estimated beluga whale population was nearly fifty per-cent lower than 1994 estimates. At the beluga whale\u27s current fifteen percent rate of decline per year, the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock would be reduced to fifty percent of its current level within five years. This level of removal is significant. The primary source of the decline was determined to be the subsistence harvest conducted by Alaskan Natives. After a comprehensive review of the Cook Inlet beluga whale\u27s status, NMFS proposed that the beluga whale be designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Once the beluga whale was designated as depleted, Alaskan Natives, represented by the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC), could not harvest another whale without first entering into a cooperative agreement with NMFS. In addition to the co-management agreement, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) so that management of the beluga whale could be conducted with the Alaskan Native Organizations (ANOs) beyond the year of the co-management agreement. Despite NMFS\u27s actions to reduce the depletion of the beluga whale, there were environmental groups that believed NMFS did not go far enough. These groups sued to have the species declared as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). An ESA listing would require more stringent regulations than a depleted listing under the MMPA. The groups\u27 concerns raised some critical questions: did NMFS obtain enough information to correctly determined that the primary cause of the beluga whale\u27s population decline was the subsistence hunting alone, making an ESA determination unwarranted; was the NMFS decision arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider future impacts; and, is the subsistence hunt so important to the ANOs that they should be allowed to continue to hunt a depleted species? This Comment evaluates the politics and implications of NMFS\u27s decision to designate the beluga whale as depleted under the MMPA. First, this Comment explores the applicable laws concerning marine mammals, most particularly the MMPA and the ESA. Second, it will examine the history of the beluga whale, its role in the Alaskan Native hunt, and its declining numbers over the years. Third, in addition to studying Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley, this Comment will look in depth at NMFS\u27s response to accusations that it was not aggressive enough in considering to list the beluga whale as endangered under the ESA. NMFS\u27s consider- ations of other factors that may have caused the beluga whale\u27s decline are examined to determine why the beluga was designated as depleted rather than endangered or threatened. Fourth, and finally, the importance of subsistence harvesting, and the restrictions on that harvest by Alaskan Natives are explored. After weighing the considerations on each side of the issue, this Comment concludes that NMFS took the appropriate action under the prevailing circumstances, and that NMFS\u27s restriction on the ANOs\u27 harvest was put in place after a careful weighing of the need for the beluga whale population to increase while also trying to preserve Alaskan Natives\u27 historical tradition

A Whale\u27s Tale: Efforts To Save The Cook Inlet, Alaska Beluga Whale

In 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) became concerned about the status of the beluga whale in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) data indicated that the estimated population of beluga whales in the Cook Inlet region had been declining since 1994. Results from annual surveys in 1998 revealed that the estimated beluga whale population was nearly fifty per-cent lower than 1994 estimates. At the beluga whale\u27s current fifteen percent rate of decline per year, the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock would be reduced to fifty percent of its current level within five years. This level of removal is significant. The primary source of the decline was determined to be the subsistence harvest conducted by Alaskan Natives. After a comprehensive review of the Cook Inlet beluga whale\u27s status, NMFS proposed that the beluga whale be designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Once the beluga whale was designated as depleted, Alaskan Natives, represented by the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC), could not harvest another whale without first entering into a cooperative agreement with NMFS. In addition to the co-management agreement, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) so that management of the beluga whale could be conducted with the Alaskan Native Organizations (ANOs) beyond the year of the co-management agreement. Despite NMFS\u27s actions to reduce the depletion of the beluga whale, there were environmental groups that believed NMFS did not go far enough. These groups sued to have the species declared as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). An ESA listing would require more stringent regulations than a depleted listing under the MMPA. The groups\u27 concerns raised some critical questions: did NMFS obtain enough information to correctly determined that the primary cause of the beluga whale\u27s population decline was the subsistence hunting alone, making an ESA determination unwarranted; was the NMFS decision arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider future impacts; and, is the subsistence hunt so important to the ANOs that they should be allowed to continue to hunt a depleted species? This Comment evaluates the politics and implications of NMFS\u27s decision to designate the beluga whale as depleted under the MMPA. First, this Comment explores the applicable laws concerning marine mammals, most particularly the MMPA and the ESA. Second, it will examine the history of the beluga whale, its role in the Alaskan Native hunt, and its declining numbers over the years. Third, in addition to studying Cook Inlet Beluga Whale v. Daley, this Comment will look in depth at NMFS\u27s response to accusations that it was not aggressive enough in considering to list the beluga whale as endangered under the ESA. NMFS\u27s consider- ations of other factors that may have caused the beluga whale\u27s decline are examined to determine why the beluga was designated as depleted rather than endangered or threatened. Fourth, and finally, the importance of subsistence harvesting, and the restrictions on that harvest by Alaskan Natives are explored. After weighing the considerations on each side of the issue, this Comment concludes that NMFS took the appropriate action under the prevailing circumstances, and that NMFS\u27s restriction on the ANOs\u27 harvest was put in place after a careful weighing of the need for the beluga whale population to increase while also trying to preserve Alaskan Natives\u27 historical tradition

Distribution and Ecology of Invasive Ants

This project examines exactly how invasive specific types of ants are, and what effect that has on the ecosystem. To do so, most of the research must be compiled for the first time, as there is a lack of knowledge and research on this subject. Through former research, Tillberg finds that there are invasive pavement ants in Oregon state parks, but due to a lack of research on the species, their impact is unknown. The research will follow a paired design, comparing similar areas with and without pavement ants, to discover what differences this invasive species has on habitats

Distribution and Ecology of Invasive Ants

This project examines exactly how invasive specific types of ants are, and what effect that has on the ecosystem. To do so, most of the research must be compiled for the first time, as there is a lack of knowledge and research on this subject. Through former research, Tillberg finds that there are invasive pavement ants in Oregon state parks, but due to a lack of research on the species, their impact is unknown. The research will follow a paired design, comparing similar areas with and without pavement ants, to discover what differences this invasive species has on habitats

The Quasar Outflow Contribution to AGN Feedback: VLT Measurements of SDSS J0318-0600

We present high spectral resolution VLT observations of the BAL quasar SDSS J0318-0600. This high quality data set allows us to extract accurate ionic column densities and determine an electron number density of n_e=10^3.3 +/- 0.2 cm^-3 for the main outflow absorption component. The heavily reddened spectrum of SDSS J0318-0600 requires purely silicate dust with a reddening curve characteristic of predominately large grains, from which we estimate the bolometric luminosity. We carry out photoionization modeling to determine the total column density, ionization parameter and distance of the gas and find that the photionization models suggest abundances greater than solar. Due to the uncertainty in the location of the dust extinction, we arrive at two viable distances for the main ouflow component from the central source, 6 and 18 kpc, where we consider the 6 kpc location as somewhat more physically plausable. Assuming the canonical global covering of 20% for the outflow and a distance of 6 kpc, our analysis yields a mass flux of 120 M_sun yr^-1 and a kinetic luminosity that is ~0.1% of the bolometric luminosity of the object. Should the dust be part of the outflow, then these values are ~4x larger. The large mass flux and kinetic luminosity make this outflow a significant contributor to AGN feedback processes.Comment: Accepted for publication in ApJ, 57 pages, 14 figure