Alaska's Lake Monster?: a large shark moving into fresh water could be answer

Big Foot.  Nessie.  Many regions of the world have there local monster animal legends.  Persistent folklore often invites the curiosity of scientists who wish to determine once and for all what is fact and what is fiction.  They do so because of the belief that where there's smoke there just might be fire.

In Alaska, at Lake Lliamna, there were rumors of a monster lurking about in the dark cold water. Scientists had debated the possibility that a Pacific sleeper shark, or sharks, had entered the lake. There had been anecdotal sightings of what could possibly have been a sleeper shark but there has not been any definitive, scientific proof.

This past Wednesday, a reported sighting of a sleeper shark in a similar, nearby lake has added some additional weight to the theory.  As reported in the Alaska Dispatch, "Chris Babcock of King Cove, Alaska, spotted something in the shallow water of the King Cove Lagoon, a lake of brackish water. Closer inspection revealed a Pacific sleeper shark rolling and thrashing around. The shark's antics were filmed and posted on YouTube (see video below). According to Babcock, the fish approached him when he entered shallow water, but later moved to deeper water." 

The shark's behavior was considered a bit unusual - but perhaps not.  That is to say, there is a lot that marine experts don't know about these sharks.  They can reach a length of 20 feet and weigh upwards of 4 tons.  That's a big shark by any standard.  In addition to being predators, they are thought to be major scavengers, clearing the ocean bottom of dead animals as they sink into the cold depths, but sleeper sharks caught accidentally in nets have also been found to have other freshwater fish including salmon in their stomachs.  Hence, the possibility that sleeper sharks are able to venture into freshwater or brackish lakes, perhaps drawn in by the opportunity to feed on large freshwater fish.

But how long can they survive in freshwater?  Is there a pattern or migratory cycle to their appearances in lakes?  Is it seasonal, based on weather or temperature changes, or are they following the migratory or breeding patterns of other prey species?  Scientists like Bruce Wright of the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association would like to answer those questions by tagging and tracking sleeper sharks, as is done with other shark species worldwide.

Some marine scientists think that sleeper sharks could become a major predator in Arctic waters due to climate change.  With warmer water temperatures melting greater amounts of sea ice, animals like seals and polar bears are spending more time in water.  Some caught sleeper sharks have been found to have seal and even polar bear remains inside, so this slow-moving predator - that catches its prey with a strong vacuum motion of its large mouth, biting with its teeth to get down what it couldn't swallow whole - could have an impact of the balance in the Arctic ecosystem.

Is the Pacific sleeper shark the "lake monster" of Alaskan folklore?  Seems reasonable enough.  The closely-related Greenland shark has been put forth as a candidate for Scotland's Loch Ness resident sea monster, so perhaps someday we will have definitive proof that monsters do exist.  They just might end up a bit tamer than our imaginations have conjured up over the years.

Source: Alaska Dispatch

Polar Bears: good news and bad news in the U.S.

Following up on my December 19th posting regarding polar bears, here's an example of one-step forward, two steps back.

Gaining Ground, Literally
The step forward has to do with the designation in late November of 187,000 sq.miles of northern Alaska wilderness as a "critical habitat" for polar bears. As part of a mandated response to having the polar bear listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the area - although it had to be prodded into action by a lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) which has been after the Fish and Wildlife Service to fully implement protections, like the critical habitat, required by the Endangered Species Act.

The critical habitat designation mandates that any federal agency that would wish to open up any of the land for economic activity (as in granting permits for gas and oil exploration, which several oil companies were planning on doing), they would have to first consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding adverse impact against the polar bears.

“This critical habitat designation enables us to work with federal partners to ensure their actions within its boundaries do not harm polar bear populations,” said Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in a Fish and Wildlife Service news release. “Nevertheless, the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of its sea ice habitat caused by human-induced climate change. We will continue to work toward comprehensive strategies for the long-term survival of this iconic species.”

Read about the polar bears' "critical habitat" in BBC News.

Losing Ground
In response to the critical habitat designation, the governor of Alaska has announce his intention to have the state file suit against the federal government. As reported by the Washington Post, Governor Sean Parnell contends the critical habitat designation will delay jobs and increase costs - or even kill - resource development projects that are important to Alaska.

"Once again, we are faced with federal overreach that threatens our collective prosperity," Gov. Parnell said. "We don't intend to let this stand."

A recent newsletter from the CBD reported, "The Center is already in court defending the polar bear against the state's previous suit to have it removed from Endangered Species Act protection, arguing instead that protection should be upgraded. Scientists estimate there's a greater than 80 percent chance that polar bears in Alaska will be extinct by mid-century under current greenhouse gas emissions trends."

"They [the Alaska state government] have opposed every Endangered Species Act listing to date," said CBD attorney Brendan Cummings.

Read more about Alaska's threat of legal action in the Washington Post.

Losing More Ground
The Center for Biological Diversity will be kept busy with the additional setback announced this past Wednesday by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The department filed arguments in court to support its decision to list the polar bear as threatened, as opposed to endangered under the Endangered Species Act - endangered being a designation that many conservation groups have pushed for because it requires the government to address the source of the endangerment (global warming).

Also, the department is maintaining a Bush-era decision to exempt greenhouse gases from regulation under the Endangered Species Act, thereby eliminating from consideration all scientific studies and data that point to climate change as being one of the primary threats to polar bear ice-based habitat.

The CBD plans to counter the department of the Interior's arguments in court in February. CBD attorney Kassie Siegal said, "[The department's action] puts a gloss on a horribly flawed Bush-era decision that is anti-science and serves to greatly undermine the protection of not just the polar bear but all of America's imperiled wildlife."

There are some environmentalists and legal experts that feel that the Endangered Species Act is not the best vehicle for pressing forward with the greenhouse gas issue, that it would best be served in Congress than in the courts. But given the current state of partisan politics and the influence of gas and oil lobbyists, that probably won't be happening any time soon, so groups like the Center for Biological Diversity continue with legal action.

Read more about the Dept. of Interior decision in the Los Angeles Times.

Alaska & Arctic Oil Drilling: moves of protest within government

While many conservation groups bemoaned the recent U.S. administration's announcement of oil drilling, all is not lost. The proposed strategy, which included areas in Alaska and the Arctic, has led many to either believe that President Obama is back-tracking on campaign promises or that (as I believe) he is compromising in an attempt to gain bipartisan support for future climate and energy legislation.

However, while conservation groups are initiating email and letter write-in campaigns to voice their protest, there are significant wheels in government that are turning that could also make a difference. Here is an excerpt from an article from Los Angeles Times writer Kim Murphy about various actions which we should be watching:

What's next for oil in the Alaskan Arctic?

"Just because the Obama administration has finally settled on its strategy for offshore oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf, don't think the issue of what happens in the Alaskan Arctic is settled -- far from it.

Already, lots of new developments are underway. New briefs have been filed in the attempt to stop Shell Offshore Inc.'s plan to drill exploration wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas; a new Government Accountability Office report criticizes the Minerals Management Agency in Alaska for how it conducts its environmental reviews; and now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is turning attention back to the classic battleground over Arctic oil, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The agency announced it is beginning its first update in more than two decades of the conservation plan for the 19.2-million-acre refuge that lies west of the Prudhoe Bay oilfields on Alaska's North Slope -- home to grizzly bears, moose, wolverines, Dall sheep, birds, a massive herd of caribou and, if you're feeling optimistic, as much as 10.4 billion barrels of oil.

About 8 million acres of the refuge already are protected as wilderness. The new study could recommend additional areas for wilderness protection (read: no oil drilling, ever) including, conceivably, the so-called 1002 area of the coastal plain designated by Congress to study for possible oil development.

'There are no avenues of discussion closed off to the public,' Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Bruce Woods said."

Read the entire article to learn who, within government, is supporting the protection of the Alaskan/Arctic wilderness and what is going on behind the headlines.

Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.

Beluga Whales: NOAA proposes critical habitat in Alaska

Back in March of this year, I reported on efforts being undertaken to protect a dwindling population of Beluga Whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet - a slender offshoot in the Gulf of Alaska that leads to north to Anchorage. Impacted by pollution and development, partly related to oil drilling activities, the number of whales have declined from over 1000 in the 1980's to a little over 300 today.

On Tuesday, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) proposed a 3,000 square mile area as critical habitat for these whales. This is a positive first step, in response to legal action from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and repudiates the position taken at the time by now former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin.

Next will be the required public comment period. You can expect that there will be rebuttals from the oil industry and other less conservation-minded groups. Pro-whale advocates and groups will need to make their voices heard during this crucial next step.

Check in with CBD or stay tuned to this blog to hear about what you can do to contribute.

Arctic U.S. Waters: off limits to commercial fishing by December

Here's another press release, this time from Oceana.org, regarding the closing of U.S. waters north of Alaska's Bering Strait to commercial fishing (the Arctic Fishery Management Plan) . The federal closing recognizes the lack of sufficient scientific data on fish populations and the impact from climate change, overfishing, and other environmental or man-made factors.

While encouraging, the downside is that the Minerals Management Service is moving full speed to allow for oil drilling in the same region. With heavy lobbying from the oil industry, permits are being granted without updated and sufficient scientific impact studies and data - the opposite approach of the Arctic Fishery Management Plan.

This exemplifies the ongoing tug-of-war that goes on in Washington DC: energy vs. the environment. At some point, politics and commerce will need to realize that objective, unbiased scientific research data will need to be the final referee.

U.S. Closes Arctic Waters to Industrial Fishing

Regulations call for more science before any fishing allowed in U.S. Arctic; conservationists call for same approach for oil and gas

November 3, 2009
Washington, DC

Final regulations protecting almost 200,000 square miles of U.S. Arctic waters from industrial fishing were released today and will be effective starting December 3, 2009. The new regulations close all U.S. waters north of Alaska’s Bering Strait to commercial fishing to allow time for more science to assess the health of Arctic ocean ecosystems and the potential impacts of large-scale fishing given the impacts the Arctic is already facing from climate change and ocean acidification. The regulations do not affect subsistence fishing, and are in fact designed to help protect Arctic ocean ecosystems central to subsistence. Conservationists hailed the regulations and called for a similar approach for other industries and in other nations.

“This is ‘doing it right’ in the Arctic—there is a desperate need for more science to be done before we add any more stress to an area already feeling the heat of climate change,” said Dr. Chris Krenz, Arctic Project Manager for Oceana. “We need a rush of scientists into the Arctic, not an armada of cargo ships, oil platforms and fishing trawlers.”

The same U.S. Arctic waters protected from fishing are squarely in the crosshairs of the oil industry. Last month the Minerals Management Service (MMS) approved a plan for drilling in the Beaufort Sea next summer, and a similar plan for the Chukchi Sea is currently under review with a decision expected this month. Conservationists, scientists, local communities and others have called for a science-based precautionary approach for oil that is now in place for fishing, especially given the higher risks of oil spills in the Arctic and the inability to contain, control or clean up an accident in the icy waters of the Arctic.

The Arctic is home to thousands of people who rely on ocean ecosystems as central to a subsistence way of life practiced for generations. Climate change and ocean acidification are already placing stress on those ecosystems, and adding additional pressures from fishing or oil and gas activities could push them past the brink. Arctic communities showed strong support for the Arctic fishing protections and have expressed concern that activities from oil and gas, including seismic testing and the risk of oil spills, could adversely impact bowhead whales and other animals that are vital sources of food for local peoples.

President Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force is likely to recommend addressing the changing Arctic conditions as a national priority and using an ecosystem based management approach to protect, maintain and restore the health of the nation’s marine ecosystems. The Arctic Fishery Management Plan exemplifies this approach.

“MMS has given the green light to drill in the U.S. Arctic Ocean next July using the same inadequate and out of date science that led fisheries managers to close the region to commercial fishing,” said Krenz. “One of the reasons Americans elected President Obama is because they believe in sustainable development based on sound science and demonstrated response capabilities. MMS and Shell continue on an unrelenting course that MMS records indicate are likely to bring a major spill and calamity to the Arctic.”

The U.S. State Department is in discussions with other Arctic nations to expand these same fishing protections across international boundaries. These Arctic fishing regulations set a worldwide precedent of putting management in place before commercial fishing occurs.

Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: Palin's latest target

While Alaska governor Sarah Palin generated a lot of interest during the presidential campaign, she also came under fire from conservationists due to her anti-conservation views regarding polar bears (opposed to a possible endangered species status) and timber wolves (approves aerial hunting by helicopter).

Seems she has not re-thought any of her views as she has taken a position against the pending endangered species listing of the Beluga Whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet. Feeling that enough is already being done, she has, on behalf of the state, filed an intent to sue in 60-days. But not every conservative supports her position. "Sarah Palin is a very gifted politician, she obviously has a future and she's going places," says Jim DiPeso, spokesman for Republicans for Environmental Protection. "And she is certainly within her rights to file litigation. But in this case she's on the wrong side of history and the American conservation movement, and of what's prudent and right."

The Cook Inlet is home to an isolated population of beluga whales that are exposed to pollutants from the oil industry - a leftover effect from a grandfather clause when the 1972 Clean Water Act was enacted, allowing the pollution to continue. That population has declined dramatically since the 1980s, from over 1,000 to about 375 now. More than 300 whales perished in one four-year stretch (1994 to 1998) alone, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Salon.com wrote an interesting and detailed piece on the entire flap and the Center of Biological Diversity plans to take decisive counter-action. Oddly, the belugas were listed as endangered candidates during the Bush administration. "It's hard to imagine that anyone could be more anti-environmental than Bush, but Palin is Exhibit A," says Brendan Cummings, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Here we had the most anti-environmental administration in U.S. history, and Palin still feels compelled to sue over one of the few environmentally positive things to come out of that administration."

Not hard to see where her intentions and allegiance lies - from the woman who echoed "drill, baby, drill."

Arctic Methane: from theory to harsh reality

In mid-December of last year, I posted information regarding the potential for climate change in the Arctic to allow for the release of possibly vast amounts of methane gas from warming permafrost. The info came from scientific and academic journal articles and posed a serious but little publicized consequence of global warming.

It looks like the issue caught the eye of mainstream media with an article in last Sunday's edition of the Los Angeles Times. What caught the attention of the Times was research taking place in Alaska and Siberia that documents the actual effect that was once theorized.

Melting permafrost is producing sinkholes that fill with water and rapidly become ponds which ultimately merge into small lakes. In these bodies of water organic matter decomposes and releases methane - a greenhouse gas considered to be more potent than many of the other gases, like CO2, that are typically known to the public. Scientists have found streams of methane bubbles emanating from these lakes and have actually been able to ignite these bubbles streams to form a "methane flare."

The extant of the impact of Arctic methane gas is not completely clear at this time, so research will continue in Alaska and Siberia, funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. But Alaskans have seen the effect of warming permafrost with houses collapsing and trees falling from softened soil. It has been estimated that repairs to affected schools, roads and bridges will cost $6 billion over the next two decades.

In December, I described the issue as a potential land mine right under our feet. It may becoming harder to watch where we step. Time to act.

Click here for online L.A. Times article and excellent video.