DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation Use of Oil Spill Dispersants and In-Situ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation Use of Oil Spill Dispersants and In-Situ Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment And Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation Use of Oil Spill Dispersants And In-Situ Burning As Part of Response Actions Considered By the Caribbean Regional Response Team Prepared by: CRRT Response Technologies Committee October 2015 Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation Use of Oil Spill Dispersants and In-Situ Burning as Part of Response Actions Considered by the Caribbean Regional Response Team Table of Contents I. Description of Proposed Actions 1 A. Concurrence and Consultation Requirements under NCP Subpart J 1 B. CRRT Dispersant Preauthorization Agreements 2 C. Consensus Conditional Zones for Dispersant Consideration 3 D. CRRT Policy for the Use of In-Situ Burning 4 E. Description of Dispersants 5 F. Chemical Constituents in Dispersants 7 G. Toxicity of Dispersants 9 H. Toxicity of Chemically Dispersed Oil 10 I. Biodegradation of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil 12 J. Description of In-Situ Burning 16 II. Species and Habitat within the Action Area 18 A. Description of ESA-Listed Species Present 18 1. Sea Turtles 18 2. Marine Mammals 20 3. Fish 28 4. Corals 31 B. Essential Fish Habitat 35 1. Specific Areas that May be Affected by Oil Spill Response Operations 35 2. Life History of Spiny Lobster 37 3. Life History of Queen Conch 37 4. Life History of Corals 38 5. Life History of Reef Fish 40 III. Analysis of the Effects of the Proposed Actions 42 A. Potential Effects of Oil 42 1. Effects of Oil on Species 42 a. Sea Turtles 42 b. Marine Mammals (Cetaceans) 43 c. Fish 44 d. Corals 47 2. Effects of Oil on Habitat 49 a. Coral 49 b. Seagrass 50 c. Mangroves 50 d. Stranded Oil Behavior in Mangroves 53 B. Potential Impacts of Dispersants and Dispersed Oil 54 1. Sea Turtles 56 2. Marine Mammals 57 3. Fish 59 4. Corals 60 5. Habitat Effects 62 a. TROPICS Study 62 b. Coral 63 c. Seagrass 63 d. Mangroves 64 C. Potential Impacts of In-Situ Burning 64 1. Inhalation 65 2. Floating/Stranded Burn Residue Contact Hazards 65 3. Burn Residue Properties, Toxicity and Sinking Hazards 66 4. Habitat Effects of In-Situ Burning 67 D. Physical Impacts of Response Operations 67 1. Vessel Operations 67 2. Physical Removal 68 IV. Avoidance and Minimization Procedures 69 V. Effects Determinations 70 A. Effects of Dispersants/Dispersed Oil 70 1. Sea Turtles and Critical Habitat 70 2. Marine Mammals 71 3. Fish 73 4. Corals and Habitat 74 5. Reef Fish and Habitat 75 6. Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch and Habitats 76 B. Effects of In-Situ Burning 78 1. Sea Turtles and Critical Habitat 78 2. Marine Mammals 79 3. Fish 80 4. Corals and Habitat 80 5. Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch and Habitat 81 C. Effects of Dispersants and In-Situ Burning Response Operations 81 1. Sea Turtles and Critical Habitat 81 2. Marine Mammals 83 3. Fish 84 4. Corals and Habitat 84 5. Essential Fish Habitat 85 VI. Conclusions 86 List of Acronyms Literature Cited Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation Use of Oil Spill Dispersants and In-Situ Burning as Part of Response Actions Considered by the Caribbean Regional Response Team I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the Co-Chairs of the Caribbean Regional Response Team (CRRT), request reinitiation of consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on the potential use of dispersants and in-situ burning in waters of the Caribbean region. Informal ESA Section 7 Consultations were completed with NMFS on June 14, 1995 for the CRRT preauthorization agreement on in-situ burning, and on March 24, 1997 for the CRRT preauthorization agreement on dispersants. NMFS concurred with the USCG’s determination that implementation of the proposed dispersant and in-situ burning agreements was not likely to adversely affect listed species, with the implementation of certain measures to avoid any potential effects to these species. Since completion of those consultations on the dispersant and in-situ burning plans’ effects on whales and sea turtles, new species have been listed, and critical habitats have been designated, that require reinitiation of consultation under the ESA. The CRRT also requests the initiation of an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation pursuant to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 USC 1801 et seq). An EFH consultation has not been completed previously for the use of dispersants and in-situ burning in the U.S. Caribbean. Following an oil spill, response actions are needed to minimize or reduce the threat to human health and environmental impacts. While physical control and recovery techniques are the traditional response measures, other countermeasures such as dispersants and/or in-situ burning also need to be considered. The CRRT agrees that the primary method of controlling discharged oil should be the physical removal of the oil from the environment. However, the CRRT recognizes that the complete physical containment, collection, and removal of oil discharges may not be possible. The use of dispersants and in-situ burning may therefore be considered to prevent a substantial threat to the public health or welfare, or to minimize the threat of impacts to the environment. The CRRT encourages the combination of effective techniques to minimize a spill’s effect. A. Concurrence and Consultation Requirements under NCP Subpart J Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) provides for the RRT representatives for EPA, the affected states1, and the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees to review and either approve, disapprove, or approve with modification preauthorization plans for the use of chemical countermeasures for oil spill response. If preauthorization is approved, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) may authorize the use 1 The definition of State under Section 300.5 of the NCP includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 1 of chemical countermeasures as specified in the plan without obtaining specific concurrences from EPA, the affected states, or DOC and DOI. For spill situations that are not addressed by preauthorization plans, the FOSC, with the concurrence of the EPA representative to the RRT and, as appropriate, the RRT representatives from the states with jurisdiction over the navigable waters threatened by the release or discharge, and in consultation with the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees, may authorize the use of chemical countermeasures, provided that the products are on the NCP Product Schedule. B. CRRT Dispersant Preauthorization Agreements Between 1991 and 1995, the CRRT signed two Letters of Agreement (LOAs) on Limited Use of Dispersants and Chemical Agents for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Under those LOAs, the following waters are designated as preauthorized areas for the initiation of dispersant application: a. For Puerto Rico: Waters at least 0.5 miles seaward of any shoreline; and Waters at least 30 feet (ft) in depth. b. For U.S. Virgin Islands: Waters at least 1.0 miles seaward of any shoreline or at least one mile from any reef which is less than 20 feet from the water’s surface.; and Waters at least 60 ft in depth. Additionally, the “Protocols” section of the LOAs states that dispersants or chemical agents shall not be used in, on, or over waters containing reefs; waters designated as marine reserves; mangrove areas; or waters in coastal wetlands; except with the prior and express concurrence of the commonwealth/territory and EPA, in consultation with DOC and DOI. Coastal wetlands were identified as including: 1. Submerged algae beds (rocky or unconsolidated bottom) 2. Submerged seagrass beds 3. Coral reefs ESA Section 7 consultations were conducted for listed species at the time the LOAs were developed, and were completed in 1995. However, due to the listing of additional endangered species and the designation of critical habitat since 1995, reinitiation of Section 7 consultation on the preauthorization agreement is required for newly listed species and designated critical habitat, and for any species that were included in the previous consultation for which new information is available related to the potential impacts of the use of chemical countermeasures on these species or their habitats. EFH consultation under MSFCMA was not conducted at that time because the amendment was finalized in 1996, and has since been further amended. Therefore, an EFH consultation is also 2 being requested on the preauthorization agreement by the CRRT at this time, in conjunction with the ESA Section 7 consultation. C. Consensus Conditional Zones for Dispersant Consideration Between 2003 and 2008, three Ecological Risk Assessment Consensus Workshops (ERAs) were conducted within the Caribbean region. The purpose of the workshops was to provide oil spill response training and to evaluate the relative risk to natural resources from various oil spill response options (e.g. on water mechanical recovery, dispersant application and shoreline cleanup) in comparison to natural recovery. Among the recommendations from those workshops was the consensus that dispersant usage in the Caribbean should be considered in waters shallower and closer to shore than identified in the current LOAs. Based on the results of the ERAs, as well as increased research, expertise and knowledge concerning the use of dispersants and other chemical countermeasures, the CRRT has determined that the FOSC should consider the use of chemical countermeasures to be potentially beneficial in waters with the following depth and distance from shore (known as the Consensus Conditional Zones): a. For Puerto Rico: Waters 30 ft in depth or more, regardless of distance from shoreline b. For U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Status of Sea Turtles Listed Under
    STATUS REVIEWS OF SEA TURTLES LISTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973: Loggerhead Turtle, Caretta caretta East Pacific Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata Kemp's Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii Olive Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Silver Spring, Maryland United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington D.C. Literature citations should read as follows: Plotkin, P.T. (Editor). 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status Reviews for Sea Turtles Listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland Pamela T. Plotkin, Ph.D., Editor, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Species, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Current Address: Pamela T. Plotkin, Ph.D. University of Delaware, Department of Entomology and Applied Ecology, 240 Townsend Hall, Newark, DE. Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (301)492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 The fee for the Status Review will vary depending on the current page charges. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ......................................... iii Executive Summary ........................................ iv Loggerhead Sea Turtle ....................................... 1 East Pacific Green Sea Turtle ................................. 24 Leatherback Sea Turtle ...................................... 37 Hawksbill .............................................. 76 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ................................... 109 Olive Ridley Sea Turtle .................................... 123 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act requires that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Culebra National Wildlife Refuge
    Culebra National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region September 2012 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN CULEBRA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Culebra, Puerto Rico U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia September 2012 Culebra National Wildlife Refuge TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................2 National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................2 Legal and Policy Context ..............................................................................................................4 Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations .......................................................................................................4 National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives .....................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules
    66584 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules Author: The primary author of this 3. Thursday, January 29, 1998Ð throughout the Caribbean, green and notice is Paul Hartfield (see ADDRESSES Center for Multiple Use, Williamson hawksbill turtle populations have section). Street, Culebra, Puerto Rico. diminished to the point where they may ADDRESSES: likely be extirpated from this area. The Authority Comments and requests for a copy of the environmental assessment green turtle is listed as threatened under The authority for this action is the (EA) for this proposed rule should be the ESA, except for the Florida and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 addressed to Barbara Schroeder, Pacific coast of Mexico breeding U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). National Sea Turtle Coordinator, Office populations, which are listed as Dated: December 11, 1997. of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 endangered. The hawksbill turtle is H. Dale Hall, East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD listed as endangered throughout its Acting Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife 20910. range. Service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additionally, green and hawksbill [FR Doc. 97±33140 Filed 12±18±97; 8:45 am] Michelle Rogers, 301±713±1401 or turtles, as well as other marine turtle BILLING CODE 4310±55±P Bridget Mansfield, 813±570±5312. species, are protected internationally SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Background Fauna and Flora (CITES). Without these On February 14, 1997, NMFS protections, it is highly unlikely that National Oceanic and Atmospheric announced the receipt of a petition either species, traditionally highly Administration presenting substantial information to prized in the Caribbean for their flesh, warrant a review (62 FR 6934) to fat, eggs, and shell, would exist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 170/Wednesday, September 2
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 46693 the commenters supported the proposed in Docket No. PS±117 or of the present burdensome alternative that achieves action. The commenters agreed with our action is not warranted. the objective of the rule. assessment that the limited safety and B. Regulatory Flexibility Act List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195 environmental risk of the lines does not warrant applying Part 195 standards on Low stress interfacility transfer lines Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, top of the existing regulatory coverage covered by the present action are Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting by OSHA and the Coast Guard. associated primarily with the operation and recordkeeping requirements. of refineries, petrochemical and other In consideration of the foregoing, Advisory Committee Review industrial plants, and materials RSPA amends 49 CFR Part 195 as We presented the proposed rule transportation terminals. In general, follows: change, including risk assessment and these facilities are not operated by small 1. The authority citation for Part 195 supporting analyses, for consideration entities. Nonetheless, even if small continues to read as follows: by the Technical Hazardous Liquid entities operate low-stress interfacility Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, Pipeline Safety Standards Committee at transfer lines, their costs will be lower 60108, 60109, 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53. because this action reduces compliance a meeting in Washington, D. C. on May 2. In § 195.1, the introductory text of burdens. Therefore, based on the facts 6, 1998. This statutory advisory paragraph (b) is republished, and committee reviews all safety rules RSPA available about the anticipated impact paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as proposes for hazardous liquid pipelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Caribbean Skinks Listing Petition
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST NINE SPECIES OF CARIBBEAN SKINKS AS ENDANGERED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Puerto Rican Skink (Spondylurus nitidus) at Guajataca State Forest in Quebradilllas, Puerto Rico. © Puerto Rico Wildlife: Alfredo Colón. Http://alfredocolon.zenfolio.com. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY February 11, 2014 i Notice of Petition _____________________________________________________________________________ Sally Jewell, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Douglas Krofta, Chief Branch of Listing, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Room 420 4401 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] Cindy Dohner, Regional Director Region 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1875 Century Boulevard NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30345 [email protected] PETITIONERS Collette L. Adkins Giese Amphibian and Reptile Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 339 Circle Pines, MN 55014-0339 [email protected] Tierra Curry Senior Scientist Center for Biological Diversity PO Box 11374 Portland, OR 97211 [email protected] ii Dr. Renata Platenberg Reptile Ecologist St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands [email protected] Submitted this 11th day of February, 2014 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b); Section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e); and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity and Dr. Renata Platenberg hereby petition the Secretary of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), to list nine species of Caribbean skinks as endangered species and to designate critical habitat to ensure recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • De Adaptación Al Cambio Climático 0XqlflslrGh&Xoheud
    PLAN PILOTO COMUNITARIO DE ADAPTACIÓN AL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO 0XQLFLSLRGH&XOHEUD Preparado por: Contenido Síntesis de la vulnerabilidad Perfil de Culebra: Situación base para determinar la vulnerabilidadɕ Informe de resultados del taller de cartografía participativa ɕInforme de resultados 1 de entrevistas a líderes de opiniónɕÍndice de vulnerabilidad social ɕResultados de escenarios aumento del nivel del mar y efecto combinado de marejada ciclónica y aumento en los niveles del mar 2 Estrategias de adaptación Materiales asociados a la participación ciudadana y la 3 consulta pública SÍNTESIS DE LA VULNERABILIDAD 2016 Contenido 1. Introducción .................................................................................................. 3 Trasfondo ....................................................................................................................... 3 ¿Por qué Culebra? ........................................................................................................ 3 2. Proceso de desarrollo del plan de adaptación ......................................... 5 3. Lineamientos para determinar la vulnerabilidad en Culebra ................... 8 3.1 ¿Quién o qué es vulnerable? ............................................................................. 8 3.2 ¿A qué son vulnerables los sistemas naturales, las comunidades y negocios en Culebra? ..................................................................................................... 9 3.3 ¿Cuáles serían los impactos directos e indirectos en Culebra? ................
    [Show full text]
  • Swimming Against the Tide: Recent Surveys of Exploitation, Trade, and Management of Marine Turtles in the Northern Caribbean
    Swimming Against the Tide: Recent Surveys of Exploitation, Trade, And Management of Marine Turtles In the Northern Caribbean By Elizabeth H. Fleming This prepublication copy contains the full final text of the report. The final publication will contain additional maps and photographs. TRAFFIC North America April 2001 Published by TRAFFIC North America Washington, D.C., USA © 2001 TRAFFIC North America All rights reserved. ISBN 0-89164-161-0 All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and may be produced with permission. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must credit TRAFFIC North America as the copyright owner. The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the TRAFFIC Network, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), or IUCN-The World Conservation Union. The designations of geographical entities in this publication and the presentation of material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark ownership is held by WWF. TRAFFIC is a joint program of WWF and IUCN. Cover photograph by Ursula Keuper-Bennett and Peter Bennett Design by Williams Production Group Printed on recycled paper. CONTENTS FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................v
    [Show full text]
  • How to Cite Complete Issue More Information About This Article
    Revista de Biología Tropical ISSN: 0034-7744 ISSN: 0034-7744 Universidad de Costa Rica Hernández-Alcántara, Pablo; Cruz-Pérez, Ismael-Narciso; Solís-Weiss, Vivianne Eunicida and Amphinomida polychaetes (Annelida) inhabiting dead coral fragments in the Chinchorro Bank Biosphere Reserve, Mexican Caribbean Revista de Biología Tropical, vol. 67, no. 5, 2019, pp. 16-38 Universidad de Costa Rica DOI: DOI 10.15517/RBT.V67IS5.38923 Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=44965909002 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System Redalyc More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and Journal's webpage in redalyc.org Portugal Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative DOI 10.15517/RBT.V67IS5.38923 Artículo Eunicida and Amphinomida polychaetes (Annelida) inhabiting dead coral fragments in the Chinchorro Bank Biosphere Reserve, Mexican Caribbean Poliquetos de Eunicida y Amphinomida (Annelida) que habitan fragmentos de coral muertos en la Reserva de Biosfera del Banco Chinchorro, Caribe Mexicano Pablo Hernández-Alcántara1 Ismael-Narciso Cruz-Pérez2 Vivianne Solís-Weiss3 1. Unidad Académica de Ecología y Biodiversidad Acuática, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Circuito Exterior S/N, Cd. Universitaria, Ciudad de México, 04510, México, [email protected] 2. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Batalla 5 de mayo S/N esquina Fuerte de Loreto, Colonia Ejército de Oriente, C.P. 09230, Ciudad de México, México, [email protected] 3. Unidad Académica de Sistemas Arrecifales, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Culebra Island, Puerto Rico
    Geology of Culebra Island, Puerto Rico by Thomas H. Banks A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Houston, Texas May 1962 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ill ABSTRACT ...........o......e... V INTRODUCTION 1 Previous Work ••••• 2 Geography ................... 3 Geomorphology 4 Acknowledgements 6 SUMMARY OF STRATIGRAPHY OF CULEBRA 8 CULEBRA ANDESITES . 10 Introduction ....... 10 Andesite Flows •••••••••••••«*••• 10 Thickness of Flows 11 Structure and Formation of Pillows ••••••• 12 Mineralogy of the Flows 17 Petrography of the Flows .••••...•.•• 31 Pyroclastic Rocks •....•••••••••.. 35 Mineralogy of the Pyroclastics 39 Petrography of the Pyroclastics 4l CERRO BALCON FORMATION 42 Mineralogy ••••» ..... 43 Petrography • . 46 CAYO NORTE FORMATION 48 Mineralogy and Petrography •••«. 48 IGNEOUS INTRUSIVES 50 Mineralogy and Petrography of the Diorites ... 51 Mineralogy and Petrography of the Spilites ... 52 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY . 54 GEOLOGIC HISTORY 57 -ii- Page COMPARISON OF THE CULEBRA ANDESITES WITH OTHER BASALTS AND ANDESITES AND THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGEN OF OROGENIC ANDESITES ........ 59 APPENDIX. THIN SECTION DESCRIPTIONS 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 7^ -iii- LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 Map showing location of area •••••••• 5 2 Cerro Balcon from Cayo Norte • ••<>•••• 7 3 Stratigraphy of Culebra .......... 9 4 Andesite pillows connected by narrow necks 13 5 Large pillows on Cayo Norte 14 6 Andesite lavas on Culebrita ........ 15 7 Plagioclase compositions plotted against stratigraphic position ......... 19 8 "Honey-combed structure” in Japanese plagioclase .......... 21 9 Plagioclase phenocrysts with groundmass inclusions .......... 23 10 Plagioclase with groundmass inclusions ... 24 11 Composition of clinopyroxenes ....... 29 12 Thin section of porphyritic augite andesite lava ...... 32 13 Same, greater magnification 33 14 Pseudomorphs after olivine in porphyritic augite andesite • .
    [Show full text]
  • Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia Mydas)
    GREEN SEA TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS) 5-YEAR REVIEW: SUMMARY AND EVALUATION NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE OFFICE OF PROTECTED RESOURCES SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTHEAST REGION JACKSONVILLE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA AUGUST 2007 U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of the Interior National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION.................................................................................. 1 1.1 Reviewers . .......................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology Used to Complete the Review ................................................. 1 1.3 Background .................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 FR notice citation announcing initiation of this review . 1 1.3.2 Listing history . 1 1.3.3 Associated rulemakings .. 2 1.3.4 Review history . .. 2 1.3.5 Species' recovery priority number at start of review .. 2 1.3.6 Recovery plans . .. 3 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Policy............. 3 2.1.1 Is the species under review a vertebrate? ............................................ 3 2.1.2 Is the species under review listed as a DPS?....................................... 3 2.1.3 Is there relevant new information for this
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on Telepresence-Enabled Exploration of the Caribbean Region White Paper Submissions
    Workshop on Telepresence-enabled Exploration of the Caribbean Region White Paper Submissions Ocean Exploration Trust October 5, 2012 Contents 1 Overview 4 2 Region 1: Yucat´anto Bahamas 6 2.1 Yucat´ancontinental slope and Yucat´anbasin ................. 6 2.2 Relict Reefs .................................... 8 2.3 Campeche and Yucat´anEscarpments ...................... 9 2.4 Escarpment biodiversity along the Campeche Bank .............. 11 2.5 Offshore sinkholes and caves Yucat´anMexico ................. 13 2.6 Yucat´anStrait .................................. 14 2.7 Chinchorro Bank Biosphere Reserve ...................... 16 2.8 Shipwrecks of the Belizean Cayes & coastal deep waters ........... 18 2.9 Belize Barrier Reef and the Gulf of Honduras ................. 19 2.10 Oil & gas cold seep benthic communities .................... 22 2.11 Exploring hidden ecosystems in the Straits of Florida ............. 23 2.12 The Exuma Sound ................................ 26 2.13 North Bahamas to Dominican Republic .................... 29 2.14 Using ROVs to explore Bahamas Blue Holes .................. 31 2.15 Mesophotic coral ecosystem ........................... 32 3 Region 2: Cayman Rise to Greater Antilles 35 3.1 Mid Cayman Rise ................................ 36 3.2 Cayman Trough ................................. 37 3.3 Gonave Bay, Haiti ................................ 37 3.4 Bobadilla’s Fleet ................................. 39 3.5 Mona Passage, Puerto Rico ........................... 40 3.6 Mona Channel .................................. 42 3.7 Puerto Rico Trench and Muertos Trough .................... 44 3.8 Glacial Shorelines and Reefs on Insular Slopes ................. 46 3.9 Corals as an indicator of SST Variation .................... 48 3.10 Anegada-Jungfern Passage Complex ...................... 50 2 CONTENTS 3 3.11 U.S. EEZ around Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands ............. 52 3.12 Spawning aggregation of mutton snapper ................... 55 3.13 Exploration of deep water fauna off the Virgin Islands shelf ........
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Framework for Sea Turtle Restoration Activities
    Deepwater Horizon Oil Si p ll Natural Resource Damage Assessment Strategic Framework for Sea Turtle Restoration Activities June 2017 The Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) Trustees (Trustees) developed a set of strategic frameworks for oysters, birds, marine mammals, and sea turtles to provide context for prioritization, sequencing, and selection of projects within future Trustee Implementation Group (TIG) restoration plans. The strategic frameworks also consider coordination across Restoration Areas, common monitoring standards and approaches, and opportunities for adaptive management. As established in the DWH oil spill Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PDARP/PEIS), these frameworks will help the Trustees consider each resource at the ecosystem level, while implementing restoration at the local level. The Regionwide TIG authorized the creation of these strategic frameworks to promote information sharing and coordination across TIGs for the four resources (oysters, birds, marine mammals, and sea turtles) that will receive restoration funding allocated to the Regionwide TIG. The Trustees also anticipate that the strategic frameworks will be useful for restoration planning and implementation by all TIGs. Developed by teams of Trustee scientists and resource experts, each framework includes four modules with information for the TIGs to consider for planning, implementing, and monitoring restoration activities: Module 1: A brief summary
    [Show full text]