DOCSLIB.ORG

California Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan and Proposed Regulatory Amendments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan and Proposed Regulatory Amendments Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration California Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan and Proposed Regulatory Amendments PREPARED FOR: California Fish and Game Commission 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Tom Mason California Department of Fish and Wildlife Senior Environmental Scientist PREPARED BY: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Curtis E. Alling, AICP Michael Eng March 2016 Cover Photo: Courtesy of California Department of Fish and Wildlife 15010103.01 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This chapter of the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Final IS/ND) contains the comment letters received during the 45-day public review period for the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Draft IS/ND), which commenced on January 21, 2016 and closed on March 7, 2016. The Notice of Completion was provided to the State Clearinghouse on January 21, 2016 and the IS/ND was circulated to the appropriate state agencies. COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT IS/ND Table 1 below indicates the numerical designation for the comment letters received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter. Comment letters have been numbered in the order they were received by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Table 1 List of Commenters Letter Agency/Organization/Name Date 1 Native American Heritage Commission February 8, 2016 2 William Barnett January 29, 2016 3 Ken Kurtis, Reef Seekers Dive Co. January 31, 2016 4 A. Talib Wahab, Avicena Network, Inc. March 6, 2016 5 Center for Biological Diversity March 7, 2016 6 Christopher Miller March 7, 2016 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT IS/ND The written comments received on the Draft IS/ND and the responses to those comments are provided in this chapter of the Final IS/ND. Comment letters are reproduced in their entirety, followed by response(s). Each comment is indicated by a bracket and identifying number in the margin of the comment letter. Responses are numbered, corresponding to the comment number in the bracketed letter. Following the completion of the public review period for the Draft IS/ND, revisions to Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, Chapter 4, References, and the appendices were made to describe the project’s tribal consultation approach and compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Statutes of 2014). These changes are shown in the responses to comments below and the corresponding chapter/section of the Draft IS/ND and are denoted by strikeout (strikeout) for deletions and underline (underline) for additions. This response to comment chapter is followed by the revised Draft IS/ND reflecting these changes. Inclusion of clarifying information on the AB 52 compliance that occurred for the project does not alter the conclusions of the Draft IS/ND. California Fish and Game Commission Spiny Lobster FMP and Proposed Regulatory Amendments IS/ND 1 Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental California Fish and Game Commission 2 Spiny Lobster FMP and Proposed Regulatory Amendments IS/ND Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments California Fish and Game Commission Responses to Comments Spiny Lobster FMP and Proposed Regulatory Amendments IS/ND 3 Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental California Fish and Game Commission 4 Spiny Lobster FMP and Proposed Regulatory Amendments IS/ND Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments California Fish and Game Commission Responses to Comments Spiny Lobster FMP and Proposed Regulatory Amendments IS/ND 5 Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental Letter Native American Heritage Commission 1 Gayle Totton Response February 8, 2016 Thank you for taking the time to submit comments on the proposed project. Responses are provided below. Comment 1-1 The comment states that there is no information in the document regarding the completion of mandated contact or consultation with California Native American Tribes for this project. The comment includes the requirements of AB 52. Response to Comment 1-1 The following revisions have been made to Section 3.5, Cultural Resource and Chapter 4, References, of the Draft IS/ND to document the contact with California Native American Tribes that was conducted for the project. Materials related to tribal consultation conducted by CDFW for the project have been included in Appendix B to the Draft IS/ND. Section 3.5, Cultural Resources has been revised as follows: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated V. Cultural Resources. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? Section 3.5.1, Environmental Setting has been revised as follows: Native American Outreach and Consultation The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), of which CDFW is a member, adopted its Tribal Consultation Policy in 2012. The policy requires effective consultation between departments of CNRA and California tribes (CNRA 2012). In October 2014, CDFW adopted its own Tribal Communication and Consultation Policy. In accordance with these policies, in 2013 and 2015, CDFW sent notices to request input on the California Spiny Lobster FMP and/or government-to-government consultation to all federally recognized tribes whose ancestral lands are proximate to the project area (Appendix B). California Fish and Game Commission 6 Spiny Lobster FMP and Proposed Regulatory Amendments IS/ND Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments In 2015, the Legislature passed AB 52 and the Governor signed it into law. The statute amended CEQA to establish tribal consultation procedures for evaluation of potential effects to tribal cultural resources. To initiate the AB 52 consultation process, tribes must submit a written request to a lead agency to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe (PRC Section 21080.3.1[b]). All tribes proximate to the project area that have submitted to CDFW a written request for such notification were included in CDFW’s two prior consultation notices. Therefore, no additional notification or consultation is required pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.1. Section 3.5.2, Discussion has been revised as follows: e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? No Impact. CDFW has conducted outreach to California tribes in accordance with the 2012 CNRA Tribal Consultation Policy, the 2014 CDFW Tribal Communication and Consultation Policy, and AB 52. Letters to tribal representatives were sent on October 10, 2013 and October 19, 2015 to invite tribal input on the FMP and proposed amendments to the commercial and recreational fishing regulations. No tribal cultural resources have been identified in the project area, recognizing the project area consists of the marine environment off the state’s coast. Because CDFW previously notified all tribes proximate to the project area, offered to consult with them regarding the proposed action, and received no responses, CDFW has complied with both its own consultation requirements and those of AB 52. The FMP and regulatory amendments would have no impact on tribal cultural resources, because activities associated with reasonably foreseeable compliance responses would occur in marine waters off the California coast and would not alter the ocean floor. Chapter 4, References has been revised as follows: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014 (October 2). Tribal Communication and Consultation Policy. Sacramento, CA. California Natural Resources Agency. 2012 (November 20). California Natural Resources Agency Adoption of Final Tribal Consultation Policy. Sacramento, CA. CNRA. See California Natural Resources Agency. No changes to the project are required, and the conclusions regarding significance of cultural resources contained in the Draft IS/ND are not altered. Comment 1-2 The comment states that Section 3.5.1 and part (b) does not document that mitigation measures were developed in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American tribes pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.2(a). The comment further states that the cultural resources section does not address Tribal take and access to sites. The comment describes requirements for development mitigation with input from tribes that request consultation. Response to Comment 1-2 See response to Comment 1-1, above. Comment 1-3 The comment states that the cultural resource section does not provide specific information on cultural assessments performed for the project, and there is no documentation as to where the cultural resource information originated. The comment further states that cultural assessments for the projects should include California Fish and Game Commission Responses to Comments Spiny Lobster FMP and Proposed Regulatory Amendments IS/ND 7 Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental MPA/MLPA documents and consultation with
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CBD Technical Series No. 87 Assessing Progress Towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 on Sustainable Marine Fisheries
    Secretariat of the CBD Technical Series No. 87 Convention on Biological Diversity ASSESSING PROGRESS87 TOWARDS AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGET 6 ON SUSTAINABLE MARINE FISHERIES CBD Technical Series No. 87 Assessing Progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 on Sustainable Marine Fisheries Serge M. Garcia and Jake Rice Fisheries Expert Group of the IUCN Commission of Ecosystem Management Published by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity ISBN: 9789292256616 Copyright © 2020, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views reported in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This publication may be reproduced for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The Secretariat of the Convention would appreciate receiving a copy of any publications that use this document as a source. Citation Garcia, S.M. and Rice, J. 2020. Assessing Progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 on Sustainable Marine Fisheries. Technical Series No. 87. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 103 pages For further information, please contact: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity World Trade Centre 413 St. Jacques Street, Suite 800 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9 Phone: 1(514) 288 2220 Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cbd.int This publication was made possible thanks to financial assistance from the Government of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Let Us Eat Fish
    Let Us Eat Fish By RAY HILBORN Published: April 14, 2011 Yuko Shimizu THIS Lent, many ecologically conscious Americans might feel a twinge of guilt as they dig into the fish on their Friday dinner plates. They shouldn’t. Over the last decade the public has been bombarded by apocalyptic predictions about the future of fish stocks — in 2006, for instance, an article in the journal Science projected that all fish stocks could be gone by 2048. Subsequent research, including a paper I co-wrote in Science in 2009 with Boris Worm, the lead author of the 2006 paper, has shown that such warnings were exaggerated. Much of the earlier research pointed to declines in catches and concluded that therefore fish stocks must be in trouble. But there is little correlation between how many fish are caught and how many actually exist; over the past decade, for example, fish catches in the United States have dropped because regulators have lowered the allowable catch. On average, fish stocks worldwide appear to be stable, and in the United States they are rebuilding, in many cases at a rapid rate. The overall record of American fisheries management since the mid-1990s is one of improvement, not of decline. Perhaps the most spectacular recovery is that of bottom fish in New England, especially haddock and redfish; their abundance has grown sixfold from 1994 to 2007 . Few if any fish species in the United States are now being harvested at too high a rate, and only 24 percent remain below their desired abundance . Much of the success is a result of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act , which was signed into law 35 years ago this week.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Consequences of Fishing and Their Implications For
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Evolutionary Applications ISSN 1752-4571 SYNTHESIS Evolutionary consequences of fishing and their implications for salmon Jeffrey J. Hard,1 Mart R. Gross,2 Mikko Heino,3,4,5 Ray Hilborn,6 Robert G. Kope,1 Richard Law7 and John D. Reynolds8 1 Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA, USA 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 3 Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 4 Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway 5 Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria 6 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 7 Department of Biology, University of York, York, UK 8 Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada Keywords Abstract adaptation, fitness, heritability, life history, reaction norm, selection, size-selective We review the evidence for fisheries-induced evolution in anadromous salmo- mortality, sustainable fisheries. nids. Salmon are exposed to a variety of fishing gears and intensities as imma- ture or maturing individuals. We evaluate the evidence that fishing is causing Correspondence evolutionary changes to traits including body size, migration timing and age of Jeffrey J. Hard, Conservation Biology Division, maturation, and we discuss the implications for fisheries and conservation. Few Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 studies have fully evaluated the ingredients of fisheries-induced evolution: selec- Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112, USA. Tel.: (206) 860 3275; fax: (206) 860 tion intensity, genetic variability, correlation among traits under selection, and 3335; e-mail: [email protected] response to selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Fisheries Science
    Foundations of Fisheries Science Foundations of Fisheries Science Edited by Greg G. Sass Northern Unit Fisheries Research Team Leader Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Escanaba Lake Research Station 3110 Trout Lake Station Drive, Boulder Junction, Wisconsin 54512, USA Micheal S. Allen Professor, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences University of Florida 7922 NW 71st Street, PO Box 110600, Gainesville, Florida 32653, USA Section Edited by Robert Arlinghaus Professor, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany James F. Kitchell A.D. Hasler Professor (Emeritus), Center for Limnology University of Wisconsin-Madison 680 North Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA Kai Lorenzen Professor, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences University of Florida 7922 NW 71st Street, P.O. Box 110600, Gainesville, Florida 32653, USA Daniel E. Schindler Professor, Aquatic and Fishery Science/Department of Biology Harriett Bullitt Chair in Conservation University of Washington Box 355020, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA Carl J. Walters Professor, Fisheries Centre University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY BETHESDA, MARYLAND 2014 A suggested citation format for this book follows. Sass, G. G., and M. S. Allen, editors. 2014. Foundations of Fisheries Science. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. © Copyright 2014 by the American Fisheries Society All rights reserved. Photocopying for internal or personal use, or for the internal or personal use of specific clients, is permitted by AFS provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copy- right Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, USA; phone 978-750-8400.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Green Journal Volume 1, Issue 43
    Electronic Green Journal Volume 1, Issue 43 Review: Ocean Recovery: A Sustainable Future for Global Fisheries? By R. Hilborn and U. Hilborn Reviewed by Byron Anderson DeKalb, Illinois, USA Hilborn, Ray and Hilborn, Ulrike. Ocean Recovery: A Sustainable Future for Global Fisheries? New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 2019; xii, 196pp. ISBN: 9780198839767, hardcover, US $37.95. Managed ocean fisheries provide about half of global fish production. Fish stocks are largely dependent on fisheries management, and fish are important to global food security. While many individuals and organizations lament the decline of fish, the truth is that oceans still contain a lot of fish and fish stocks are not declining. Ocean Recovery: A Sustainable Future for Global Fisheries? by Ray Hilborn and Ulrike Hilborn presents an overview of how fisheries are managed and counters misconceptions about fisheries management, the status and sustainability of fish stocks, and the relative cost of catching fish in the ocean when compared with producing food from the land. A common misunderstanding, for example, is that overfishing causes a termination of the bounty of fish. While fish stocks can experience a temporary decline, fishing pressure subsides and stocks rebuild, though some can take years to do so. Environmental impacts of fishing are considered. For example, if a person stops eating fish, they may be likely to turn to beef, chicken, or pork, sources of food that are significantly more damaging on the environment. However, vegetarian and vegan diets are not discussed as potential alternatives to eating fish. Other topics covered include fisheries sustainability and management, recreational and fresh water fisheries, seafood certification, ecosystem-based management, and allocating fishing boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • When Monopoly Harvester Co-Ops Are Preferred to a Rent Dissipated Resource Sector
    Are Two Rents Better than None? When Monopoly Harvester Co-ops are Preferred to a Rent Dissipated Resource Sector Dale T. Manning1 Colorado State University [email protected] Hirotsugu Uchida2 University of Rhode Island [email protected] Draft May 10, 2014 Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2014 AAEA Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, July 27-29, 2014. Copyright 2014 by D.T. Manning and H. Uchida. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. 1 Assistant professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, [email protected]. 2 Assistant professor, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, [email protected]. Abstract This paper evaluates the conditions under which a fish-harvester cooperative (co-op) with monopoly power represents a preferable outcome when compared to a rent dissipated fishery. Currently, United States anti-trust law prevents harvesters from coordinating to restrict output. In a fishery, this coordination can represent an improvement, despite the creation of market power because a monopolist builds the resource stock. We show, analytically, how a monopolist harvester co-op generates both resource and monopoly rent. While the monopolist generates monopoly rent by restricting production to generate higher prices, it also manages the fish stock to lower stock dependent harvesting costs. We demonstrate the conditions under which a monopoly is likely to be favored over rent dissipation. Given that a monopoly can be efficiency- improving in a common property resource sector, policymakers should consider both the costs and benefits of co-op formation in the case of a rent dissipated fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 178Th CM Minutes
    Table of Contents I. Welcome and Introductions ................................................................................................ 1 II. Approval of the 178th Agenda ............................................................................................. 1 III. Approval of the 176th and 177th Meeting Minutes .............................................................. 2 IV. Executive Director’s Report ............................................................................................... 2 V. Agency Reports ................................................................................................................... 5 A. National Marine Fisheries Service .......................................................................... 5 1. Pacific Islands Regional Office .................................................................. 5 2. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center..................................................... 7 B. NOAA Office of General Counsel, Pacific Islands Section ................................. 13 C. US Department of State ........................................................................................ 15 D. US Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................... 15 E. Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 17 1. US Coast Guard ........................................................................................ 17 a) Search and Rescue
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Conduct? Twelve Years Fishing Under the UN Code
    Safe Conduct? Twelve years fishing under the UN Code Tony J. Pitcher, Daniela Kalikoski, Ganapathiraju Pramod and Katherine Short December 2008 Table Of Contents Page Foreword .......................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................4 Introduction and Scope of the Analysis .....................................................................6 Methods .........................................................................................................................7 Results ............................................................................................................................8 Overall Compliance with the Code of Conduct ..........................................................8 Comparison among Questions .............................................................................10 Comparison of Intentions with Implementation of Code Compliance Measures . 10 Analysis of Issues Relating to Compliance with the Code of Conduct .................12 Reference points ..................................................................................................12 Irresponsible fishing methods; by-catch, discards and harmful fishing gear .......15 Ghost fishing ........................................................................................................18 Protected and no-take areas ...............................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • April 2014 - March 2015
    Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean ANNUAL REPORT April 2014 - March 2015 — 1 — Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean University of Washington 3737 Brooklyn Ave NE Seattle, WA 98195-5672 206.543.5216 [email protected] jisao.washington.edu Layout and Design - Jed Thompson, JISAO CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 5 Science Highlights .............................................................................................................................7 Education and Outreach .................................................................................................................13 Financial Management and Administration ...............................................................................17 CLIMATE RESEARCH AND IMPACTS ..........................................................................21 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY ................................................................................. 41 MARINE ECOSYSTEMS .................................................................................................55 OCEAN AND COASTAL OBSERVATIONS ................................................................ 129 PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF MARINE RESOURCES ..........................145 SEAFLOOR PROCESSES .............................................................................................159 TSUNAMI OBSERVATIONS AND MODELING ........................................................169
    [Show full text]
  • Ray Hilborn Testimony
    Research in fisheries management: who decides, who pays, and how much is enough? Ray Hilborn School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences University of Washington The Problem Research in US fisheries management is dominantly an applied problem directed to producing better outcomes from our fisheries management. There is some funding for basic research through NSF, but I will consider only the funding for fisheries management. Fisheries management is widely perceived to have failed in the US, and failed in many ways, with the symptoms being (1) overfishing and loss of potential yield, (2) over-capitalization and loss of economic potential, (3) discarding and loss of potential food products, (4) by-catch of non-target species and (5) habitat destruction by fishing gear. Before determining the appropriate allocation of resources to different fisheries management problems, we need to understand how well we are doing in these areas. In some of the areas reasonably hard numbers are available. From the NMFS annual report “Our living oceans” we find that estimated loss in fish yield due to overfishing is about 14% of the total potential yield (a score of 86%). In contrast other estimates of the economic performance of US commercial fisheries give an estimated of $2.9 billion in excess expenditures out of a landed value of $3.5 billion (a score of 17%). I don’t know of any quantitative rankings of discarding, by-catch or habitat destruction, but I very much doubt that we are losing more than 20% of potential yield (biological or economic) due to any of these factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Map to Effective Area-Based Management of Blue Water Fisheries
    Road Map to Effective Area-Based Management of Blue Water Fisheries Including Workshop Proceedings January 5, 2021 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400 Honolulu, HI 96813 PHONE: (808) 522-8220 FAX: (808) 522-8226 www.wpcouncil.org Cover Image: A report of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813 Prepared by Mark Fitchett1, Ray Hilborn2, Eric Gilman3, Craig Severance4, Milani Chaloupka5, 6 7 8 Michel Kaiser , David Itano , and Kurt Schaefer 1Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, Hawaii 2School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 3Pelagic Ecosystems Research Group, Honolulu, Hawaii 4 Emeritus: University of Hawaii, Hilo 5Ecological Modelling Services Pty Ltd & Marine Spatial Ecology Lab, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 6Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom 7 Opah Consulting, Honolulu, Hawaii 8Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Edited by Thomas Remington, Contractor, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council © Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2021. All rights reserved. Published in the United States by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. ISBN# 978-1-944827-78-6 CONCEPT NOTE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON AREA- BASED MANAGEMENT OF BLUE WATER ECOSYSTEMS June 15-17, 2020, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA Background and Rationale As global demand for fisheries resources beyond continental shelves continues to increase, so does the need to effectively manage the blue water ecosystems that produce these valued resources. Blue water ecosystems span from the edge of continental shelves, often within States’ exclusive economic zones, to high seas waters beyond national jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Multi-Species Trends in Reef Fishes from a Large Volunteer Generated Data Set: a New Tool for Management
    Estimating Multi-Species Trends in Reef Fishes from a Large Volunteer Generated Data Set: A New Tool For Management by Brice X. Semmens1, J. L. Ruesink1, and C.V. Pattengill-Semmens2 1University of Washington, Department of Zoology Box 351800, Seattle, WA 98195-1800, 206-685-6893, [email protected]; 2Reef Environmental Education Foundation, P.O. Box 246, Key Largo, FL 33037 ABSRACT Coral reefs are subject to major anthropogenic impacts worldwide and sites in decline are prime candidates for management and restoration. In assessing trends, it is imperative to have data from a wide area, over several years, and for many species. We assessed trends in 50 common coral reef fishes at 21 sites throughout the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, based on volunteer surveys for the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) from 1993-1999. Analytical techniques were modified from those applied to the Breeding Bird Survey to detect sites with multi-species declines (ordered logistic regression followed by probit-normal analysis). Our results identify a subset of reef sites where trends were relatively poor for most fish species. At East Sambo in particular, a shift in fishing pressure may be reducing the density of fishes. No clear differences in trends were evident where fishing was prohibited in 1997 relative to other fished sites throughout the Florida Keys, although the expectation is that fish should increase in the future. As volunteer-generated data continue to accumulate, they will provide increasingly useful indicators of community level changes. INTRODUCTION Effective management of coral reefs requires information on species distributions and how these distributions change in time and space (Ginsburg 1993).
    [Show full text]