DOCSLIB.ORG

Wgibar 2018 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

WGIBAR 2018 REPORT ICES INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS STEERING GROUP ICES CM 2018/IEASG:04 REF ACOM AND SCICOM Interim Report of the Working Group on the In- tegrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) 9-12 March 2018 Tromsø, Norway International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H.C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2018. Interim Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR). WGIBAR 2018 REPORT 9-12 March 2018. Tromsø, Norway. ICES CM 2018/IEASG:04. 210 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.8267 The material in this report may be reused using the recommended citation. ICES may only grant usage rights of information, data, images, graphs, etc. of which it has owner- ship. For other third-party material cited in this report, you must contact the original copyright holder for permission. For citation of datasets or use of data to be included in other databases, please refer to the latest ICES data policy on the ICES website. All ex- tracts must be acknowledged. For other reproduction requests please contact the Gen- eral Secretary. This document is the product of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the view of the Council. © 2018 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 1 1 Administrative details .................................................................................................. 3 2 Terms of Reference a) – d) ............................................................................................ 4 3 Summary of Work plan ................................................................................................ 5 4 List of Outcomes and Achievements of the WG in this delivery period............. 6 4.1 List of relevant publications ............................................................................... 6 5 Progress report on ToRs a) –e) ..................................................................................... 8 5.1 Progress report on ToR a .................................................................................... 8 5.2 Progress report on ToR b .................................................................................... 8 5.3 Progress report on ToR c .................................................................................. 10 5.4 Progress report on ToR d .................................................................................. 11 5.5 Progress report on ToR e .................................................................................. 12 5.6 Cooperation ........................................................................................................ 13 6 Revisions to the work plan and justification .......................................................... 14 7 Next meeting ................................................................................................................. 15 Annex 1: List of participants ............................................................................................. 16 Annex 2: Recommendations ............................................................................................. 17 Annex 3: Agenda for WGIBAR 2018 ............................................................................... 18 Annex 4: New spatial time-series ..................................................................................... 20 Annex 5: The state and trends of the Barents Sea ecosystem in 2017 ........................ 69 Annex 6: Time-series used in WGIBAR ....................................................................... 208 Interim Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments | 1 of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) Executive summary The Working Group Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), chaired by Elena Eriksen (Norway) and Anatoly Filin (Rus- sia), met in Tromsø, Norway, on 9–12 March 2018. The meeting was attended by 21 participants from 4 institutes and 2 countries. The group updated most of the time-series data and established additional time-series for the oceanographic conditions (currents, temperature, and salinity (1980–2017), me- so zooplankton (1989–2017) and 0-group fish (six fish species, 1980–2017), based on WGIBAR-subareas for the Barents Sea. The group discussed the 2017 state and changes of the Barents Sea ecosystem (see short summery below). The group discussed also different ecosystem models and their use in the IEA, and the group will be a platform for evaluation, testing, and development of ecosystem models. WGIBAR working group provide knowledge of the status, changes, relationships, and processes in the ecosystems to the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission, the Joint Russian- Norwegian Environmental Commission, the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and En- vironment and different ICES working groups. Since the 1980s, the Barents Sea has gone from a situation with high fishing pressure, cold conditions and low demersal fish stock levels, to the current situation with high levels of demersal fish stocks, reduced fishing pressure and warm conditions. The cur- rent situation is unprecedented, and the Barents Sea appears to be changing rapidly. The main points for 2017 are: • The air and water temperatures remained higher than average and typical of warm years, yet lower than temperature in 2016. In autumn, the area covered by Atlantic waters (>3°С) was large than in 2016; areas covered by Arctic and cold bottom waters (<0°С) were small but larger than in 2016. Ice coverage was much lower than normal, but higher than in 2016; the lowest value (1%) observed in September. • Spatially integrated net primary production has increased over the years. A noteworthy increase is observed in the eastern regions where sea ice cover- age has diminished over the years. An increase in ice-free areas, and length of the growing season, provide improved habitat for phytoplankton growth. • Mesozooplankton biomass during autumn was higher than in autumn 2016 in the eastern Barents Sea and on the Central Bank, but lower on the Great Bank. Zooplankton biomasses in the Central Bank and Great Bank subareas have shown declining trends since the peak in 1995. An increasing trend in krill biomass has been observed during the last decades – and the level in 2017 was above the long-term average. Amphipods are still considered to be at a low level - although some large catches were made north and east of Svalbard. Jellyfish biomass was at third highest level since 1980. • The capelin stock has recovered after a mini-collapse in 2015–2016, and the biomass of young herring is the highest since 2005. Polar cod and blue whit- ing biomass is low. Cod and haddock biomass have decreased in recent years following a peak around 2013, but is still above the long-term mean. The 2016 and 2017 year classes of haddock seem strong and could be of the same order of magnitude as the strong 2004–2006 year classes. Sebastes mentella, Green- land halibut and long rough dab biomass is stable at or above the long-term mean. • Assessments of the benthos biomass in 2017 were very high but this most likely related with overestimation of the biomass due to the technical causes 2 | WGIBAR 2018 REPORT during the benthic monitoring like in 2012. The distribution area of the inva- sive snow crab was larger than in previous years, and for the first time rec- orded northeast of Svalbard. The shrimp, Pandalus borealis, population was within the long-term mean and stable. • The summer abundance of minke whales in the Barents Sea is now about 50 000 animals and has been quite stable or increasing over the period. The sighting rate from the 2017 survey is the highest recorded which might con- firm the apparent increasing trend at present. In 2017, 1518 individuals of nine species of marine mammals were observed during the Barents Sea Eco- system Survey (BESS), August-October 2017 and an additional 46 individuals were not identified to species level. • A large-scale monitoring of marine litter performed in the joint Norwegian– Russian ecosystem monitoring surveys in the period from 2010 to 2017. Dur- ing the time-series, plastic dominated number of observations with marine litter, as 72% of surface observations, 94% of pelagic trawls, and 86% of bot- tom trawls contained plastic. In 2017, marine litter on the surface (floating) and taken by trawls dominated by plastic. Wood was registered in the 28.4% of stations, while textile, paper, rubber and metal was observed occasionally. Interim Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments | 3 of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) 1 Administrative details Working Group name The Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) Year of Appointment within the current cycle 2016 Reporting year within the current cycle 2 Chairs Elena Eriksen (Norway) Anatoliy Filin (Russia) Meeting venues and dates 9-12 March 2018, Tromsø, Norway, (21 participants) 16–18 March 2017, Murmansk, Russia (25 participants) 4 | WGIBAR 2018 REPORT 2 Terms of Reference a) – d) ToR Description Background Science Duration Expected Plan topics Deliverables
Recommended publications
  • Joint PINRO/IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea Ecosystem 2006, with Expected Situation and Considerations for Management

    Joint PINRO/IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea Ecosystem 2006, with Expected Situation and Considerations for Management

    IMR/PINRO J O S I E N I 2 R T 2007 E R E S P O R T JOINT PINRO/IMR REPORT ON THE STATE OFTHE BARENTS SEA ECOSYSTEM IN 2006 WITH EXPECTED SITUATION AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT Institute of Marine Research - IMR Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography - PINRO This report should be cited as: Stiansen, J.E and A.A. Filin (editors) Joint PINRO/IMR report on the state of the Barents Sea ecosystem 2006, with expected situation and considerations for management. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series No. 2/2007. ISSN 1502-8828. 209 pp. Contributing authors in alphabetical order: A. Aglen, N.A. Anisimova, B. Bogstad, S. Boitsov, P. Budgell, P. Dalpadado, A.V. Dolgov, K.V. Drevetnyak, K. Drinkwater, A.A. Filin, H. Gjøsæter, A.A. Grekov, D. Howell, Å. Høines, R. Ingvaldsen, V.A. Ivshin, E. Johannesen, L.L. Jørgensen, A.L. Karsakov, J. Klungsøyr, T. Knutsen, P.A. Liubin, L.J. Naustvoll, K. Nedreaas, I.E. Manushin, M. Mauritzen, S. Mehl, N.V. Muchina, M.A. Novikov, E. Olsen, E.L. Orlova, G. Ottersen, V.K. Ozhigin, A.P. Pedchenko, N.F. Plotitsina, M. Skogen, O.V. Smirnov, K.M. Sokolov, E.K. Stenevik, J.E. Stiansen, J. Sundet, O.V. Titov, S. Tjelmeland, V.B. Zabavnikov, S.V. Ziryanov, N. Øien, B. Ådlandsvik, S. Aanes, A. Yu. Zhilin Joint PINRO/IMR report on the state of the Barents Sea ecosystem in 2006, with expected situation and considerations for management ISSUE NO.2 Figure 1.1. Illustration of the rich marine life and interactions in the Barents Sea.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Table of Contents Chapter 2. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Inventory By Lyman K. Thorsteinson .............................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3 Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Species By Milton S. Love, Mancy Elder, Catherine W. Mecklenburg Lyman K. Thorsteinson, and T. Anthony Mecklenburg .................................................................. 41 Pacific and Arctic Lamprey ............................................................................................................. 49 Pacific Lamprey………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………49 Arctic Lamprey…………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….55 Spotted Spiny Dogfish to Bering Cisco ……………………………………..…………………….…………………………60 Spotted Spiney Dogfish………………………………………………………………………………………………..60 Arctic Skate………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….66 Pacific Herring……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………..70 Pond Smelt……………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….78 Pacific Capelin…………………………….………………………………………………………………………………..83 Arctic Smelt………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91 Chapter 2. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Inventory By Lyman K. Thorsteinson1 Abstract Introduction Several other marine fishery investigations, including A large number of Arctic fisheries studies were efforts for Arctic data recovery and regional analyses of range started following the publication of the Fishes of Alaska extensions, were ongoing concurrent to this study. These (Mecklenburg and others, 2002). Although the results of included
  • Atlas of North Sea Fishes

    Atlas of North Sea Fishes

    ICES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH REPORT RAPPORT DES RECHERCHES COLLECTIVES NO. 194 Atlas of North Sea Fishes Based on bottom-trawl survey data for the years 1985—1987 Ruud J. Knijn1, Trevor W. Boon2, Henk J. L. Heessen1, and John R. G. Hislop3 'Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research, Haringkade 1, PO Box 6 8 , 1970 AB Umuiden, The Netherlands 2MAFF, Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 OHT, England 3Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB9 8 DB, Scotland Fish illustrations by Peter Stebbing International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer Palægade 2—4, DK-1261 Copenhagen K, Denmark September 1993 Copyright ® 1993 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by photostat or microfilm or stored in a storage system or retrieval system or by any other means without written permission from the authors and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Illustrations ® 1993 Peter Stebbing Published with financial support from the Directorate-General for Fisheries, AIR Programme, of the Commission of the European Communities ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 194 Atlas of North Sea Fishes ISSN 1017-6195 Printed in Denmark Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 2. Recruit surveys.................................................................................. 3 2.1 General purpose of the surveys.....................................................................
  • Fish and Fish Populations

    Fish and Fish Populations

    Intended for Energinet Document type Report Date March 2021 THOR OWF TECHNICAL REPORT – FISH AND FISH POPULATIONS THOR OWF TECHNICAL REPORT – FISH AND FISH POPULATIONS Project name Thor OWF environmental investigations Ramboll Project no. 1100040575 Hannemanns Allé 53 Recipient Margot Møller Nielsen, Signe Dons (Energinet) DK-2300 Copenhagen S Document no 1100040575-1246582228-4 Denmark Version 5.0 (final) T +45 5161 1000 Date 05/03/2021 F +45 5161 1001 Prepared by Louise Dahl Kristensen, Sanne Kjellerup, Danni J. Jensen, Morten Warnick https://ramboll.com Stæhr Checked by Anna Schriver Approved by Lea Bjerre Schmidt Description Technical report on fish and fish populations. Rambøll Danmark A/S DK reg.no. 35128417 Member of FRI Ramboll - THOR oWF TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Summary 4 2. Introduction 6 2.1 Background 6 3. Project Plan 7 3.1 Turbines 8 3.2 Foundations 8 3.3 Export cables 8 4. Methods And Materials 9 4.1 Geophysical survey 9 4.1.1 Depth 10 4.1.2 Seabed sediment type characterization 10 4.2 Fish survey 11 4.2.1 Sampling method 12 4.2.2 Analysis of catches 13 5. Baseline Situation 15 5.1 Description of gross area of Thor OWF 15 5.1.1 Water depth 15 5.1.2 Seabed sediment 17 5.1.3 Protected species and marine habitat types 17 5.2 Key species 19 5.2.1 Cod (Gadus morhua L.) 20 5.2.2 European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa L.) 20 5.2.3 Sole (Solea solea L.) 21 5.2.4 Turbot (Psetta maxima L.) 21 5.2.5 Dab (Limanda limanda) 22 5.2.6 Solenette (Buglossidium luteum) 22 5.2.7 Herring (Clupea harengus) 22 5.2.8 Sand goby (Pomatoschistus minutus) 22 5.2.9 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus L.) 23 5.2.10 Sandeel (Ammodytes marinus R.
  • Biodiversity of Arctic Marine Fishes: Taxonomy and Zoogeography

    Biodiversity of Arctic Marine Fishes: Taxonomy and Zoogeography

    Mar Biodiv DOI 10.1007/s12526-010-0070-z ARCTIC OCEAN DIVERSITY SYNTHESIS Biodiversity of arctic marine fishes: taxonomy and zoogeography Catherine W. Mecklenburg & Peter Rask Møller & Dirk Steinke Received: 3 June 2010 /Revised: 23 September 2010 /Accepted: 1 November 2010 # Senckenberg, Gesellschaft für Naturforschung and Springer 2010 Abstract Taxonomic and distributional information on each Six families in Cottoidei with 72 species and five in fish species found in arctic marine waters is reviewed, and a Zoarcoidei with 55 species account for more than half list of families and species with commentary on distributional (52.5%) the species. This study produced CO1 sequences for records is presented. The list incorporates results from 106 of the 242 species. Sequence variability in the barcode examination of museum collections of arctic marine fishes region permits discrimination of all species. The average dating back to the 1830s. It also incorporates results from sequence variation within species was 0.3% (range 0–3.5%), DNA barcoding, used to complement morphological charac- while the average genetic distance between congeners was ters in evaluating problematic taxa and to assist in identifica- 4.7% (range 3.7–13.3%). The CO1 sequences support tion of specimens collected in recent expeditions. Barcoding taxonomic separation of some species, such as Osmerus results are depicted in a neighbor-joining tree of 880 CO1 dentex and O. mordax and Liparis bathyarcticus and L. (cytochrome c oxidase 1 gene) sequences distributed among gibbus; and synonymy of others, like Myoxocephalus 165 species from the arctic region and adjacent waters, and verrucosus in M. scorpius and Gymnelus knipowitschi in discussed in the family reviews.
  • Marine Fishes from Galicia (NW Spain): an Updated Checklist

    Marine Fishes from Galicia (NW Spain): an Updated Checklist

    1 2 Marine fishes from Galicia (NW Spain): an updated checklist 3 4 5 RAFAEL BAÑON1, DAVID VILLEGAS-RÍOS2, ALBERTO SERRANO3, 6 GONZALO MUCIENTES2,4 & JUAN CARLOS ARRONTE3 7 8 9 10 1 Servizo de Planificación, Dirección Xeral de Recursos Mariños, Consellería de Pesca 11 e Asuntos Marítimos, Rúa do Valiño 63-65, 15703 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. E- 12 mail: [email protected] 13 2 CSIC. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas. Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo 14 (Pontevedra), Spain. E-mail: [email protected] (D. V-R); [email protected] 15 (G.M.). 16 3 Instituto Español de Oceanografía, C.O. de Santander, Santander, Spain. E-mail: 17 [email protected] (A.S); [email protected] (J.-C. A). 18 4Centro Tecnológico del Mar, CETMAR. Eduardo Cabello s.n., 36208. Vigo 19 (Pontevedra), Spain. 20 21 Abstract 22 23 An annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Galician waters is presented. The list 24 is based on historical literature records and new revisions. The ichthyofauna list is 25 composed by 397 species very diversified in 2 superclass, 3 class, 35 orders, 139 1 1 families and 288 genus. The order Perciformes is the most diverse one with 37 families, 2 91 genus and 135 species. Gobiidae (19 species) and Sparidae (19 species) are the 3 richest families. Biogeographically, the Lusitanian group includes 203 species (51.1%), 4 followed by 149 species of the Atlantic (37.5%), then 28 of the Boreal (7.1%), and 17 5 of the African (4.3%) groups. We have recognized 41 new records, and 3 other records 6 have been identified as doubtful.
  • Length-Weight Relationships of Marine Fish Collected from Around the British Isles

    Length-Weight Relationships of Marine Fish Collected from Around the British Isles

    Science Series Technical Report no. 150 Length-weight relationships of marine fish collected from around the British Isles J. F. Silva, J. R. Ellis and R. A. Ayers Science Series Technical Report no. 150 Length-weight relationships of marine fish collected from around the British Isles J. F. Silva, J. R. Ellis and R. A. Ayers This report should be cited as: Silva J. F., Ellis J. R. and Ayers R. A. 2013. Length-weight relationships of marine fish collected from around the British Isles. Sci. Ser. Tech. Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 150: 109 pp. Additional copies can be obtained from Cefas by e-mailing a request to [email protected] or downloading from the Cefas website www.cefas.defra.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, 2013 This publication (excluding the logos) may be re-used free of charge in any format or medium for research for non-commercial purposes, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being re-used accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. This publication is also available at www.cefas.defra.gov.uk For any other use of this material please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.hmso.gov.uk/copyright/licences/ core/core_licence.htm, or by writing to: HMSO’s Licensing Division St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 E-mail: [email protected] 3 Contents Contents 1. Introduction 5 2.
  • 61661147.Pdf

    61661147.Pdf

    Resource Inventory of Marine and Estuarine Fishes of the West Coast and Alaska: A Checklist of North Pacific and Arctic Ocean Species from Baja California to the Alaska–Yukon Border OCS Study MMS 2005-030 and USGS/NBII 2005-001 Project Cooperation This research addressed an information need identified Milton S. Love by the USGS Western Fisheries Research Center and the Marine Science Institute University of California, Santa Barbara to the Department University of California of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service, Pacific Santa Barbara, CA 93106 OCS Region, Camarillo, California. The resource inventory [email protected] information was further supported by the USGS’s National www.id.ucsb.edu/lovelab Biological Information Infrastructure as part of its ongoing aquatic GAP project in Puget Sound, Washington. Catherine W. Mecklenburg T. Anthony Mecklenburg Report Availability Pt. Stephens Research Available for viewing and in PDF at: P. O. Box 210307 http://wfrc.usgs.gov Auke Bay, AK 99821 http://far.nbii.gov [email protected] http://www.id.ucsb.edu/lovelab Lyman K. Thorsteinson Printed copies available from: Western Fisheries Research Center Milton Love U. S. Geological Survey Marine Science Institute 6505 NE 65th St. University of California, Santa Barbara Seattle, WA 98115 Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [email protected] (805) 893-2935 June 2005 Lyman Thorsteinson Western Fisheries Research Center Much of the research was performed under a coopera- U. S. Geological Survey tive agreement between the USGS’s Western Fisheries
  • Response to Changing Oceanography in the Dove Time Series: a Northumberland Plankton Community Study

    Response to Changing Oceanography in the Dove Time Series: a Northumberland Plankton Community Study

    Response to Changing Oceanography in the Dove Time Series: a Northumberland Plankton Community Study Malcolm Charles Baptie Submitted for Doctor of Philosophy School of Marine Science and Technology November 2013 Abstract The Dove Time Series is a plankton monitoring station in the Northumberland coastal sea which has been sampled since 1969. Over the 20th century, major changes have occurred in the North Sea plankton which have in part correlated with oscillation in atmospheric mass over the Northern Hemisphere, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Westerly winds when the NAO is positive phase block northern low pressure systems and transport warm Atlantic water into the North Sea extending stratification, leading to greater phytoplankton biomass. Phytoplankton biomass in the central North Sea reached a sustained higher level after 1985. Phytoplankton, zooplankton and ichthyoplankton datasets were created or extended from the Dove Time Series to study the effect of oceanographic change at this location. There was a change to a high abundance community 10 years later, in 1995. The most important predictor of phytoplankton abundance was not the NAO index, but the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO), which exhibits 60-100 year and subordinate 11 and 14 year periodicity, describing a deviation from the long term sea surface temperature (SST) mean in the North Atlantic. Phytoplankton periodicity partly matched the 14 year period in the AMO, which correlates with a feedback mechanism of westerly versus northerly wind in the North Atlantic, regulating ocean-atmosphere heat flux. Zooplankton abundance was predicted by SST and ratio of maximum to minimum abundance by phytoplankton/AMO. Oceanographic conditions that were contemporary with the state of the AMO anomaly after 1995 promoted higher spring phytoplankton abundance and neritic copepod abundance peaks.
  • Investigations Into Food Web Structure in the Beaufort Sea

    Investigations Into Food Web Structure in the Beaufort Sea

    Investigations into food web structure in the Beaufort Sea by Ashley Stasko A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biology Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 2017 © Ashley Stasko 2017 Examining committee membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Dr. Eddy Carmack Research Scientist (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Supervisor(s) Dr. Michael Power Professor Dr. Heidi Swanson Assistant Professor, University Research Chair Internal Member Dr. Roland Hall Professor Internal-external Member Dr. Simon Courtenay Professor, Canadian Water Network Scientific Director Other Member(s) Dr. James Reist Research Scientist (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) ii Author’s declaration This thesis consists of material all of which I authored or co-authored: see Statement of Contributions included in the thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Statement of contributions While the research in this thesis was my own, co-authors provided valuable input and contributions to each chapter. The research was conducted in association with the Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment Marine Fisheries Project (BREA MFP). Fisheries and Oceans Canada oversaw the design and execution of the field sampling program, led by Andrew Majewski and James Reist. A full list of field participants, including myself, can be found in Majewki et al. (2016). Over-arching research objectives and themes for the PhD were developed collaboratively by myself, Michael Power, Heidi Swanson, and James Reist in concert with priorities defined by the BREA MFP.
  • Fish and Fisheries, 8(3): 241–268

    Fish and Fisheries, 8(3): 241–268

    ENERGY WORKING FOR BRITAIN FOR WORKING ENERGY Wylfa Newydd Project 6.4.86 ES Volume D - WNDA Development App D13-4 - Fish Surveys Report PINS Reference Number: EN010007 Application Reference Number: 6.4.86 June 2018 Revision 1.0 Regulation Number: 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Horizon Internal DCRM Number: WN0902-JAC-PAC-APP-00166 [This page is intentionally blank] . Wylfa Newydd Project Horizon Nuclear Power Wylfa Limited Fish Survey Report 60PO8007/AQE/REP/003 | 4 26 May 2017 WN03.01.01-S5-PAC-REP-00021 Fish Sur vey R eport Horizon N uclear Power Wylfa Li mited Fish Survey Report Wylfa Newydd Project Project no: 60PO8032 Document title: Fish Survey Report Document No.: 60PO8007/AQE/REP/003 Revision: 4 Date: 26 May 2017 Client name: Horizon Nuclear Power Wylfa Limited Client no: WN03.01.01-S5-PAC-REP-00021 Project manager: Robert Bromley Author: M. Doggett, C. Trigg & H.Young Jacobs U.K. Limited Kenneth Dibben House Enterprise Road, Southampton Science Park Chilworth, Southampton SO16 7NS United Kingdom T +44 (0)23 8011 1250 F +44 (0)23 8011 1251 www.jacobs.com © Copyright 2018 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client.
  • Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog

    Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog

    Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program (OCS Study, BOEM 2016-048) Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photographs of various fish studied for this report. Background photograph shows Arctic icebergs and ice floes. Photograph from iStock™, dated March 23, 2011. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog By Lyman K. Thorsteinson and Milton S. Love, editors Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program (OCS Study, BOEM 2016-048) Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Disclaimer: This Scientific Investigations Report has been technically reviewed and approved for publication by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The information is provided on the condition that neither the U.S. Geological Survey nor the U.S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of this information. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S.