DOCSLIB.ORG

Advanced Deployable System Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advanced Deployable System Environmental Assessment Department of the Navy ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLOYA D DE BLE CE SY N S A T V E D M A Advanced Deployable System Ocean Tests Program Definition and Risk Reduction Phase October 1998 FA C L I LI N A T WEST DI ND AVA V I E H VI A L A UT SI S O O N S N W A ★ ★ E E R C R F N N A A T P A D E E R C G S V H N R E A T N E A O I L ★ W L O O N N M P F G A Y A E M SE E C O C I E L C FOR R IT G S D E I N Y N I C ES RI ST A N I ENGINEE EMS COMM G S E R V ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADVANCED DEPLOYABLE SYSTEM OCEAN TESTS PROGRAM DEFINITION AND RISK REDUCTION PHASE Prepared for: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command 4301 Pacific Highway (OT1) San Diego, California 92110-3127 Program Point of Contact: CDR Kevin Delaney (619) 524-7248 Prepared by: Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, California 92132-5178 NEPA Point of Contact: Shawn Hynes (805) 982-1170 Date: October 1998 ABSTRACT This Environmental Assessment (EA)/Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) addresses potential impacts associated with four ocean tests of the Advanced Deployable System (ADS), a passive acoustic undersea surveillance system program sponsored by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and managed by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). ADS basically consists of cables placed on the ocean floor and is designed to “listen” to sounds produced by vessels operating within shallow waters. The four ocean tests evaluated in this EA/OEA are proposed to evaluate the capability and performance of ADS in an ocean environment. The potential impacts of the proposed tests are evaluated for the following environmental resources: geology, topography, and soils; air quality; marine environment; marine biology; marine mammals; terrestrial biology; land use, transportation, and recreation; socioeconomics; noise; cultural resources; and safety and environmental health. No significant unmitigable environmental impacts of the proposed action were identified. Alternatives to the proposed action include alternative test sites and the No-Action Alternative. ADS Ocean Tests EA October 1998 ADVANCED DEPLOYABLE SYSTEM OCEAN TESTS PROGRAM DEFINITION AND RISK REDUCTION PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST ................................................................ a-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... ES-1 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION. .............................................................................................1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................................................1-1 1.2.1 Purpose and Need for ADS ................................................................1-1 1.3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ..........................................................................1-3 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................2-1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .....................................................2-1 2.1.1 ADS Description ................................................................................2-1 2.1.1.1 Overview .............................................................................2-1 2.1.1.2 General Background of ADS ..............................................2-1 2.1.1.3 In-Water Hardware and Components..................................2-1 2.1.1.4 Installation and Repair Hardware........................................2-1 2.1.2 ADS Ocean Tests Description............................................................2-4 2.1.2.1 ADS Ocean Test Activities .................................................2-4 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS...........................................................................2-12 2.2.1 Alternatives to the ADS Ocean Tests...............................................2-12 2.2.1.1 ADS Ocean Tests Operational Criteria and Siting Process.2-12 2.2.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ..............................................................2-15 2.2.2.1 Proposed Location.............................................................2-15 2.2.2.2 Alternative ADS Ocean Test Location..............................2-15 2.2.3 ADS Shore Station Locations ..........................................................2-18 2.2.3.1 Proposed Shore Station Location ......................................2-18 2.2.3.2 Alternative Shore Station Locations..................................2-21 2.2.4 No-Action Alternative......................................................................2-24 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...........................................................................3-1 3.1 GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS...........................................................3-1 3.1.1 Background ........................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 ADS Shore Station Locations ............................................................3-1 3.1.2.1 Proposed Shore Station Location ........................................3-1 3.1.3 Alternative Shore Station Locations...................................................3-2 3.2 AIR QUALITY.... .............................................................................................3-3 3.2.1 Background ........................................................................................3-3 3.2.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ................................................................3-5 3.2.2.1 Proposed ADS Ocean Test Location...................................3-5 3.2.2.2 Alternative ADS Ocean Test Location................................3-6 ADS Ocean Tests EA October 1998 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 3.2.3 ADS Shore Station Locations ............................................................3-6 3.2.3.1 Proposed Shore Station Location ........................................3-6 3.2.3.2 Alternative Shore Station Locations....................................3-6 3.3 MARINE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................3-7 3.3.1 Background ........................................................................................3-7 3.3.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ................................................................3-7 CHAPTER TITLE PAGE 3.3.2.1 Proposed ADS Ocean Test Location...................................3-7 3.3.2.2 Alternative ADS Ocean Test Location..............................3-10 3.4 MARINE BIOLOGY ........................................................................................3-12 3.4.1 Background ......................................................................................3-12 3.4.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ..............................................................3-12 3.4.2.1 Proposed ADS Ocean Test Location.................................3-12 3.4.2.2 Alternative ADS Ocean Test Location..............................3-17 3.5 MARINE MAMMALS .....................................................................................3-19 3.5.1 Background ......................................................................................3-19 3.5.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ..............................................................3-19 3.5.2.1 Proposed ADS Ocean Test Location.................................3-19 3.5.2.2 Alternative ADS Ocean Test Location..............................3-25 3.5.3 Acoustic Issues.................................................................................3-30 3.5.3.1 Call Characteristics and Hearing Abilities ........................3-31 3.5.3.2 Masking Effects.................................................................3-37 3.6 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY ...............................................................................3-38 3.6.1 Background ......................................................................................3-38 3.6.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ..............................................................3-39 3.6.2.1 Proposed ADS Ocean Test Location.................................3-39 3.6.2.2 Alternative ADS Ocean Test Location..............................3-39 3.6.3 ADS Shore Station Locations ..........................................................3-40 3.6.3.1 Proposed Shore Station Location ......................................3-40 3.6.3.2 Alternative Shore Station Locations..................................3-43 3.7 LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND RECREATION .....................................3-46 3.7.1 Background ......................................................................................3-46 3.7.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ..............................................................3-46 3.7.2.1 Proposed ADS Ocean Test Location.................................3-46 3.7.2.2 Alternative ADS Ocean Test Location..............................3-48 3.7.3 ADS Shore Station Locations ..........................................................3-51 3.7.3.1 Proposed Shore Station Location ......................................3-51 3.7.3.2 Alternative Shore Station Locations..................................3-52 3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS........................................................................................3-53 3.8.1 Background ......................................................................................3-53 3.8.2 ADS Ocean Test Locations ..............................................................3-54
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHECKLIST and BIOGEOGRAPHY of FISHES from GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor Reyes-Bonilla, Arturo Ayala-Bocos, Luis E
    ReyeS-BONIllA eT Al: CheCklIST AND BIOgeOgRAphy Of fISheS fROm gUADAlUpe ISlAND CalCOfI Rep., Vol. 51, 2010 CHECKLIST AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF FISHES FROM GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor REyES-BONILLA, Arturo AyALA-BOCOS, LUIS E. Calderon-AGUILERA SAúL GONzáLEz-Romero, ISRAEL SáNCHEz-ALCántara Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada AND MARIANA Walther MENDOzA Carretera Tijuana - Ensenada # 3918, zona Playitas, C.P. 22860 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur Ensenada, B.C., México Departamento de Biología Marina Tel: +52 646 1750500, ext. 25257; Fax: +52 646 Apartado postal 19-B, CP 23080 [email protected] La Paz, B.C.S., México. Tel: (612) 123-8800, ext. 4160; Fax: (612) 123-8819 NADIA C. Olivares-BAñUELOS [email protected] Reserva de la Biosfera Isla Guadalupe Comisión Nacional de áreas Naturales Protegidas yULIANA R. BEDOLLA-GUzMáN AND Avenida del Puerto 375, local 30 Arturo RAMíREz-VALDEz Fraccionamiento Playas de Ensenada, C.P. 22880 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Ensenada, B.C., México Facultad de Ciencias Marinas, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Carr. Tijuana-Ensenada km. 107, Apartado postal 453, C.P. 22890 Ensenada, B.C., México ABSTRACT recognized the biological and ecological significance of Guadalupe Island, off Baja California, México, is Guadalupe Island, and declared it a Biosphere Reserve an important fishing area which also harbors high (SEMARNAT 2005). marine biodiversity. Based on field data, literature Guadalupe Island is isolated, far away from the main- reviews, and scientific collection records, we pres- land and has limited logistic facilities to conduct scien- ent a comprehensive checklist of the local fish fauna, tific studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are There So Many Flatfishes? Jaw Asymmetry, Diet, and Diversification in the Pleuronectiformes
    Why are there so many flatfishes? Jaw asymmetry, diet, and diversification in the Pleuronectiformes Jonathan Chang1 Functional Morphology and Ecology of Fishes Summer 2014 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Contact information: Jonathan Chang 610 Charles E. Young Drive S Los Angeles CA 90095 [email protected] Keywords: flatfish, Pleuronectidae, Paralichthyidae, Bothidae, asymmetry, geometric morphometrics, comparative methods, functional morphology Chang 1 Abstract Flatfishes (Actinopterygii: Pleuronectiformes) are a diverse group of teleost fishes, with over 700 species in the order. Jaw asymmetry and diet have been thought to contribute to flatfish diversity but this has not yet been tested in a comparative framework. Here I use geometric morphometric and comparative methods to test whether ocular-blind side asymmetry in flatfish head morphology contributed to flatfish diversification. I find that the repeated convergent evolution of similar morphology, jaw function, and diet likely contribute to the high diversity of flatfishes. Introduction Pleuronectiform fishes are highly diverse, with over 700 described species (Froese and Pauly, 2014). These fishes are characterized by their unique bilateral asymmetry and their benthic ecology. Flatfishes also generally consume one of three main types of prey: buried infauna, pelagic fishes and crustaceans, and a third type intermediate to the first two (de Groot 1971, Tsuruta & Omori 1976). I hypothesize that this specialization into different prey types has driven the diversification and morphological disparity in asymmetry of flatfish species. Methods 12 species of flatfish comprising of 11 genera and 2 families (Table 1) were collected via trawl and seine at these sites: Jackson Beach, [48°31'13.0"N 123°00'35.1"W] and Orcas – Eastsound [48°38'26.9"N 122°52'14.0"W].
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.5 Marine Biology
    3.5 MARINE BIOLOGY 3.5.1 Introduction 3.5.1.1 Definition of Resource For purposes of this EIS/OEIS, marine biological resources are defined as marine flora and fauna and habitats that they occupy, occurring within the Point Mugu Sea Range, Mugu Lagoon, and the intertidal and nearshore environment of San Nicolas Island and Point Mugu. This section specifically addresses marine invertebrates and flora. Fish and sea turtles are addressed in Section 3.6, marine mammals are addressed in Section 3.7, and seabirds are addressed in Section 3.8. Threatened and endangered species, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are also addressed. Species that are federally listed are afforded a degree of regulatory protection, which entails a permitting process including specific mitigation measures for any allowable (incidental) impacts on the species. Species that are proposed to be listed by the USFWS are treated similarly to listed species by that agency; recommendations of the USFWS, however, are advisory rather than mandatory in the case of proposed species. A federally listed endangered species is defined as any species, including subspecies, that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A federally listed threatened species is defined as any species “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” “Proposed” endangered or threatened species are those species for which a proposed regulation has been published in the Federal Register, but a final rule has not yet been issued. 3.5.1.2 Regional Setting The Sea Range straddles the ocean off Point Conception which is considered a major geographic feature that affects marine biological diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Study Report for Summer 2004 Bioturbation
    STUDY REPORT FOR THE SUMMER 2004 BIOTURBATION MEASUREMENT PROGRAM ON THE PALOS VERDES SHELF July 2005 Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Superfund Division (SFD-7-1) 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Prepared by: Science Applications International Corporation 10260 Campus Point Drive San Diego, CA 92121 SAIC Report Number 679 Study Report for the Summer 2004 Bioturbation Measurement Program Conducted on the Palos Verdes Shelf Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Los Angeles District Region IX 915 Wilshire Boulevard Superfund Division (SFD-7-1) Los Angeles, CA 90017 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 July 2005 Prepared by: Science Applications International Corporation 10260 Campus Point Drive San Diego, CA 92121 SAIC Report Number 679 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................v LIST OF APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Interim Receiving Waters Monitoring Report
    POINT LOMA OCEAN OUTFALL MONTHLY RECEIVING WATERS INTERIM RECEIVING WATERS MONITORING REPORT FOR THE POINTM ONITORINGLOMA AND SOUTH R EPORTBAY OCEAN OUTFALLS POINT LOMA 2020 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NPDES Permit No. CA0107409 SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2017-0007 APRIL 2021 Environmental Monitoring and Technical Services 2392 Kincaid Road x Mail Station 45A x San Diego, CA 92101 Tel (619) 758-2300 Fax (619) 758-2309 INTERIM RECEIVING WATERS MONITORING REPORT FOR THE POINT LOMA AND SOUTH BAY OCEAN OUTFALLS 2020 POINT LOMA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (ORDER NO. R9-2017-0007; NPDES NO. CA0107409) SOUTH BAY WATER RECLAMATION PLANT (ORDER NO. R9-2013-0006 AS AMENDED; NPDES NO. CA0109045) SOUTH BAY INTERNATIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (ORDER NO. R9-2014-0009 AS AMENDED; NPDES NO. CA0108928) Prepared by: City of San Diego Ocean Monitoring Program Environmental Monitoring & Technical Services Division Ryan Kempster, Editor Ami Latker, Editor June 2021 Table of Contents Production Credits and Acknowledgements ...........................................................................ii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................1 A. Latker, R. Kempster Chapter 1. General Introduction ............................................................................................3 A. Latker, R. Kempster Chapter 2. Water Quality .......................................................................................................15 S. Jaeger, A. Webb, R. Kempster,
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement and Metamorphosis in the Echiura: a Review
    Copyright 1978 by Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press Chia/Rice, eds. Settlement and Metamorphosis of Marine Invertebrate Larvae. SETTLEMENT AND METAMORPHOSIS IN THE ECHIURA: A REVIEW John Pilger Smithsonian Institution, Fort Pierce Bureau, Route 1, Box 194-C, Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Two types of settlement and metamorphosis are distinguished. Males of the family Bonellidae have specialized attachment structures used during settlement; they undergo an abbreviated, neotenic metamorphosis. Information on settlement of echiurans other than bon ell ids is limited. Metamorphosis of the trochophore proceeds through the loss of trochal bands and protonephridia, as well as the transformation of the gastrointestinal valve and the pre- and posttrochallobes into adult structures. The phenomenon of sex determination in the Bonellidae is reviewed. INTRODUCTION Echiurans occur in benthic habitats in shallow subtidal to hadal ocean depths1 and in some areas, they represent a significant component of the benthic community.2,3 Filter feeding spe­ cies such as Urechis caupo are important in their ability to direct planktonic energy to the marine benthos.4 Most echiurans feed on the nutrients in deposited sediments and thus playa major role in recycling energy in benthic communitit:s.5 The Echiura are suitable subjects for the study of reproduction and development.6 Early workers described the development of species in the genera Echiurus,7,8 Bonellia9,10,1l and Lissomyema (as Thalassema).12 The detailed work of Newby 13 ,14 on Urechis caupo added to the knowledge of echiuran development. Recent investigations have dealt primarily with the cyto­ logical, ultrastructural, and biochemical aspects of gametogenesis (see Gould-Somerol5 for a re­ view).
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series 523:1
    Vol. 523: 1–14, 2015 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published March 16 doi: 10.3354/meps11239 Mar Ecol Prog Ser FREEREE FEATURE ARTICLE ACCESSCCESS Megabenthic assemblage structure on three New Zealand seamounts: implications for seafloor massive sulfide mining R. E. Boschen1,2,*, A. A. Rowden1, M. R. Clark1, S. J. Barton1,3, A. Pallentin1, J. P. A. Gardner2 1National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 14901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand 2School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand 3School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand ABSTRACT: Seamounts are recognized for their bio- logical importance and, more recently, mineral wealth. However, in most cases the biological infor- mation required to assess the risk to seamount assem- blages from mining is lacking. This study uses towed video footage and environmental data to investigate the patterns of megafaunal distribution, assemblage structure and association with environmental vari- ables, both within and amongst 3 seamounts along the Kermadec volcanic arc in the New Zealand Exclu- sive Economic Zone. These seamounts represent dif- ferent levels of hydrothermal activity, with an over- lapping depth range: Rumble II East has no history of hydrothermal activity, Brothers is hydrothermally ac- tive and Rumble II West is predominantly inactive. All An assemblage including corals, crinoids, ascidians and 3 seamounts fall within an area previously licenced brittlestars on Rumble II West seamount, in the vicinity of for the prospecting phase of seafloor massive sulfide SMS deposits. Image: NIWA (SMS) mining. In total, 186 putative taxa were identi- fied from video samples and assigned to 20 assem- blages.
    [Show full text]
  • Trawl Communities and Organism Health
    chapter 6 TRAWL COMMUNITIES AND ORGANISM HEALTH Chapter 6 TRAWL COMMUNITIES AND ORGANISM HEALTH INTRODUCTION (Paralichthys californicus), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), California The Orange County Sanitation District scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata), ridgeback (District) Ocean Monitoring Program (OMP) rockshrimp (Sicyonia ingentis), sea samples the demersal (bottom-dwelling) cucumbers (Parastichopus spp.), and crabs fish and epibenthic macroinvertebrate (= (Cancridae species). large invertebrates that live on the bottom) organisms to assess effects of the Past monitoring findings have shown that wastewater discharge on these epibenthic the wastewater outfall has two primary communities and the health of the individual impacts to the biota of the receiving waters: fish within the monitoring area (Figure 6-1). reef and discharge effects (OCSD 2001, The District’s National Pollutant Discharge 2004). Reef effects are changes related to Elimination System (NPDES) permit the habitat modification by the physical requires evaluation of these organisms to presence of the outfall structure and demonstrate that the biological community associated rock ballast. This structure within the influence of the discharge is not provides a three dimensional hard substrate degraded and that the outfall is not an habitat that harbors a different suite of epicenter of diseased fish (see box). The species than that found on the surrounding monitoring area includes populations of soft bottom. As a result, the area near the commercially and recreationally important outfall pipe can have greater species species, such as California halibut diversity. Compliance criteria pertaining to trawl communities and organism health contained in the District’s NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit (Order No. R8-2004-0062, Permit No. CAO110604). Criteria Description C.5.a Marine Communities Marine communities, including vertebrates, invertebrates, and algae shall not be degraded.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Pens and Burrowing Megafauna
    SEA PENS AND BURROWING MEGAFAUNA An overview of dynamics and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs David J. Hughes Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban AUGUST 1998 Prepared for Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) UK Marine SACs Project, Task Manager A.M.W. Wilson, SAMS Acknowledgements I would like to thank the various reviewers of this report for their constructive suggestions and for access to unpublished information. Special thanks are due to Jim Atkinson, Mike Kaiser and Colin Chapman. I am also grateful to all others who provided information on particular sites, and to Jane Dodd and Elvira Poloczanska for their help with underwater photography. Citation: Hughes, D.J. 1998. Sea pens & burrowing megafauna (volume III). An overview of dynamics and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project). 105 Pages. CONTENTS PREFACE 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 I. INTRODUCTION 13 A. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE BIOTOPE COMPLEX 13 B. KEY POINTS FROM CHAPTER I 23 II. STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION 25 A. STATUS WITHIN THE MNCR BIOTOPE CLASSIFICATION 25 B. OCCURRENCE WITHIN CANDIDATE SACs 26 C. DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE THE BRITISH ISLES 35 D. KEY POINTS FROM CHAPTER II 36 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND PHYSICAL 37 ATTRIBUTES A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 37 B. KEY POINTS FROM CHAPTER III 41 IV. BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING 43 A. BIOLOGY OF THE MAJOR CHARACTERIZING SPECIES 43 B. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY: INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SPECIES 46 C. KEY POINTS FROM CHAPTER IV 51 V. SENSITIVITY TO NATURAL EVENTS 53 A. CASE STUDIES OF POPULATION STABILITY AND CHANGE 53 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Sur Ridge Field Guide: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Conservation Science Series Sur Ridge Field Guide: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary ©MBARI October 2017 | sanctuaries.noaa.gov | MARINE SANCTUARIES CONSERVATION SERIES ONMS-17-10 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur Ross, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Benjamin Friedman, Acting Administrator National Ocean Service Russell Callender, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator Office of National Marine Sanctuaries John Armor, Director Report Authors: Erica J. Burton1, Linda A. Kuhnz2, Andrew P. DeVogelaere1, and James P. Barry2 1Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 99 Pacific Street, Bldg 455A, Monterey, CA, 93940, USA 2Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss Landing, CA, 95039, USA Suggested Citation: Burton, E.J., L.A. Kuhnz, A.P. DeVogelaere, and J.P. Barry. 2017. Sur Ridge Field Guide: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS- 17-10. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 122 pp. Cover Photo: Clockwise from top left: bamboo coral (Isidella tentaculum, foreground center), sea star (Hippasteria californica), Shortspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus alascanus), and crab (Gastroptychus perarmatus). Credit: Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, serves as the trustee for a system of underwater parks encompassing more than 620,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters. The 13 national marine sanctuaries and two marine national monuments within the National Marine Sanctuary System represent areas of America’s ocean and Great Lakes environment that are of special national significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna of Australia 4A Polychaetes & Allies, Echiura
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA Volume 4A POLYCHAETES & ALLIES The Southern Synthesis 4. PHYLUM ECHIURA STANLEY J. EDMONDS (Deceased 16 July 1995) © Commonwealth of Australia 2000. All material CC-BY unless otherwise stated. At night, Eunice Aphroditois emerges from its burrow to feed. Photo by Roger Steene DEFINITION AND GENERAL A DESCRIPTION The phylum Echiura comprises a group of non- segmented, coelomate, bilaterally symmetrical, worm-like marine invertebrates. Echiurans have a sausage-shaped muscular trunk and an anteriorly placed extensible proboscis (Fig. 4.1; Pls 11.1–11.6). They are commonly known as spoon worms, a name derived from the function of the proboscis which, in most species, is used to collect sediment from around the burrow. The saccular trunk is usually light to dark green in B colour, or sometimes, reddish brown, and usually bears numerous flat or swollen glandular and sensory papillae. A pair of golden-brown chaetae is usually present on the ventral surface of the trunk, just posterior to the mouth (Fig. 4.2). In a few species a number of chaetae may form a complex; in others, chaetae are absent. One or two almost complete rings of larger anal chaetae surround the posterior region of the trunk in Urechis and Echiurus, respectively. The proboscis is usually flattened and ribbon-like, but may be fleshy and spatulate. It is highly extensible and C contractile, but cannot be withdrawn into the body cavity like the introvert of sipunculans. The distal end of the proboscis is usually truncate or bifid (Fig. 4.1C). In some deep-sea species the proboscis is modified considerably and assists in the collection of food.
    [Show full text]