DOCSLIB.ORG

HSTT Final EIS/OEIS Section 3.8 Marine Invertebrates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

3.8 Marine Invertebrates HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING FINAL EIS/OEIS AUGUST 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.8 MARINE INVERTEBRATES ........................................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3.8-2 3.8.1.1 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species ................................................................................... 3.8-2 3.8.1.2 Federally Managed Species ..................................................................................................... 3.8-3 3.8.1.3 Taxonomic Groups ................................................................................................................... 3.8-4 3.8.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................. 3.8-5 3.8.2.1 Invertebrate Hearing and Vocalization .................................................................................... 3.8-7 3.8.2.2 General Threats ....................................................................................................................... 3.8-8 3.8.2.3 Black Abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) ...................................................................................... 3.8-10 3.8.2.4 White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) ....................................................................................... 3.8-12 3.8.2.5 Fuzzy Table Coral (Acropora paniculata) ............................................................................... 3.8-14 3.8.2.6 Irregular Rice Coral (Montipora dilatata) .............................................................................. 3.8-16 3.8.2.7 Blue Rice Coral (Montipora flabellate) .................................................................................. 3.8-17 3.8.2.8 Sandpaper Rice Coral (Montipora patula) ............................................................................. 3.8-17 3.8.2.9 Forminiferans, Radiolarians, Ciliates (Phylum Protozoa)....................................................... 3.8-18 3.8.2.10 Sponges (Phylum Porifera) .................................................................................................. 3.8-18 3.8.2.11 Corals, Hydroids, Jellyfish (Phylum Cnidaria) ....................................................................... 3.8-19 3.8.2.12 Flatworms (Phylum Platyhelminthes) .................................................................................. 3.8-20 3.8.2.13 Ribbon Worms (Phylum Nemertea) .................................................................................... 3.8-21 3.8.2.14 Round Worms (Phylum Nematoda) ..................................................................................... 3.8-21 3.8.2.15 Segmented Worms (Phylum Annelida) ................................................................................ 3.8-21 3.8.2.16 Bryozoans (Phylum Bryozoa) ............................................................................................... 3.8-22 3.8.2.17 Squid, Bivalves, Sea Snails, Chitons (Phylum Molluska) ...................................................... 3.8-22 3.8.2.18 Shrimp, Crab, Lobster, Barnacles, Copepods (Phylum Arthropoda) .................................... 3.8-23 3.8.2.19 Sea Stars, Sea Urchins, Sea Cucumbers (Phylum Echinodermata) ...................................... 3.8-23 3.8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................................... 3.8-23 3.8.3.1 Acoustic Stressors .................................................................................................................. 3.8-24 3.8.3.2 Energy Stressors ..................................................................................................................... 3.8-39 3.8.3.3 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ............................................................................. 3.8-43 3.8.3.4 Entanglement Stressors ......................................................................................................... 3.8-60 3.8.3.5 Ingestion Stressors ................................................................................................................. 3.8-67 3.8.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS (COMBINED IMPACTS OF ALL STRESSORS) ON MARINE INVERTEBRATES . 3.8-75 3.8.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors ........................................................................................ 3.8-75 3.8.4.2 Endangered Species Act Determinations............................................................................... 3.8-76 3.8.4.3 Essential Fish Habitat Determinations ................................................................................... 3.8-76 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.8-1: STATUS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT-LISTED AND SPECIES PROPOSED FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.8-3 TABLE 3.8-2: FEDERALLY MANAGED MARINE INVERTEBRATE SPECIES WITH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, COVERED UNDER EACH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................. 3.8-4 TABLE 3.8-3: MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS OF MARINE INVERTEBRATES IN THE HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.8-4 TABLE 3.8-4: SUMMARY OF PROXIMATE THREATS TO CORAL SPECIES ................................................................................... 3.8-9 MARINE INVERTEBRATES i HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING FINAL EIS/OEIS AUGUST 2013 TABLE 3.8-5: SUMMARY OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS FOR MARINE INVERTEBRATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................................................................... 3.8-77 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3.8-1: LOCATIONS OF WHITE ABALONE IN THE HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA ...... 3.8-13 FIGURE 3.8-2: PREDICTION OF DISTANCE TO 90 PERCENT SURVIVABILITY OF MARINE INVERTEBRATES EXPOSED TO AN UNDERWATER EXPLOSION (YOUNG 1991) ................................................................................................................................ 3.8-31 MARINE INVERTEBRATES ii HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING FINAL EIS/OEIS AUGUST 2013 3.8 MARINE INVERTEBRATES MARINE INVERTEBRATES SYNOPSIS The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors, and the following have been analyzed for marine invertebrates: • Acoustic (sonar and other active acoustic sources, underwater explosives) • Energy (electromagnetic devices) • Physical disturbance and strike (vessels and in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices) • Entanglement (fiber optic cables and guidance wires, parachutes) • Ingestion (military expended materials) • Secondary Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) • Acoustics: Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources would have no effect on ESA-listed black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) or white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) species or on ESA-listed coral species. Underwater explosives may affect but are not likely to adversely affect black abalone or white abalone, and would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species. Acoustic stressors would have no effect on designated critical habitat. • Energy: Pursuant to the ESA, the use of electromagnetic devices would have no effect on ESA-listed black abalone, white abalone or coral species. Energy stressors would have no effect on designated critical habitat. • Physical Disturbance and Strike: Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices, military expended materials, and seafloor devices may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed black abalone and white abalone, and would have no effect on coral species proposed for ESA listing. Physical disturbance and strike stressors would have no effect on designated critical habitat. • Entanglement: Pursuant to the ESA, the use of fiber optic cables and guidance wires, and parachutes would have no effect on ESA-listed black abalone, white abalone or coral species. Entanglement stressors would have no effect on designated critical habitat. • Ingestion: Pursuant to the ESA, the potential for ingestion of military expended materials would have no effect on ESA-listed black abalone, white abalone or coral species. • Secondary: Pursuant to the ESA, secondary stressors may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, ESA-listed black abalone and white abalone, and would not affect coral species proposed for ESA listing. Secondary stressors would have no effect on designated critical habitat. MARINE INVERTEBRATES 3.8-1 HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING FINAL EIS/OEIS AUGUST 2013 MARINE INVERTEBRATES SYNOPSIS Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2, continued) • Pursuant to the Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources; electromagnetic sources; vessel movement;
Recommended publications
  • Abstracts of Technical Papers, Presented at the 104Th Annual Meeting, National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, Ashingtw On, March 24–29, 2012

    Abstracts of Technical Papers, Presented at the 104Th Annual Meeting, National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, Ashingtw On, March 24–29, 2012

    W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles 4-2012 Abstracts of Technical Papers, Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting, National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, ashingtW on, March 24–29, 2012 National Shellfisheries Association Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation National Shellfisheries Association, Abstr" acts of Technical Papers, Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting, National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, ashingtW on, March 24–29, 2012" (2012). VIMS Articles. 524. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles/524 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in VIMS Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, 231, 2012. ABSTRACTS OF TECHNICAL PAPERS Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting NATIONAL SHELLFISHERIES ASSOCIATION Seattle, Washington March 24–29, 2012 231 National Shellfisheries Association, Seattle, Washington Abstracts 104th Annual Meeting, March 24–29, 2012 233 CONTENTS Alisha Aagesen, Chris Langdon, Claudia Hase AN ANALYSIS OF TYPE IV PILI IN VIBRIO PARAHAEMOLYTICUS AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN PACIFICOYSTERCOLONIZATION........................................................... 257 Cathryn L. Abbott, Nicolas Corradi, Gary Meyer, Fabien Burki, Stewart C. Johnson, Patrick Keeling MULTIPLE GENE SEGMENTS ISOLATED BY NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING
  • Lobsters-Identification, World Distribution, and U.S. Trade

    Lobsters-Identification, World Distribution, and U.S. Trade

    Lobsters-Identification, World Distribution, and U.S. Trade AUSTIN B. WILLIAMS Introduction tons to pounds to conform with US. tinents and islands, shoal platforms, and fishery statistics). This total includes certain seamounts (Fig. 1 and 2). More­ Lobsters are valued throughout the clawed lobsters, spiny and flat lobsters, over, the world distribution of these world as prime seafood items wherever and squat lobsters or langostinos (Tables animals can also be divided rougWy into they are caught, sold, or consumed. 1 and 2). temperate, subtropical, and tropical Basically, three kinds are marketed for Fisheries for these animals are de­ temperature zones. From such partition­ food, the clawed lobsters (superfamily cidedly concentrated in certain areas of ing, the following facts regarding lob­ Nephropoidea), the squat lobsters the world because of species distribu­ ster fisheries emerge. (family Galatheidae), and the spiny or tion, and this can be recognized by Clawed lobster fisheries (superfamily nonclawed lobsters (superfamily noting regional and species catches. The Nephropoidea) are concentrated in the Palinuroidea) . Food and Agriculture Organization of temperate North Atlantic region, al­ The US. market in clawed lobsters is the United Nations (FAO) has divided though there is minor fishing for them dominated by whole living American the world into 27 major fishing areas for in cooler waters at the edge of the con­ lobsters, Homarus americanus, caught the purpose of reporting fishery statis­ tinental platform in the Gul f of Mexico, off the northeastern United States and tics. Nineteen of these are marine fish­ Caribbean Sea (Roe, 1966), western southeastern Canada, but certain ing areas, but lobster distribution is South Atlantic along the coast of Brazil, smaller species of clawed lobsters from restricted to only 14 of them, i.e.
  • MARINE LIFE PROFILE: HAWAIIAN LIMPET SNAIL Classification

    MARINE LIFE PROFILE: HAWAIIAN LIMPET SNAIL Classification

    Waikïkï Aquarium Education Department MARINE LIFE PROFILE: HAWAIIAN LIMPET SNAIL Hawaiian name: ‘opihi Scientific name: Cellana exarata and others Distribution: Hawaiian Islands Size: up to 3 inches (7.5 cm) Diet: algae Limpets are common snails found on rocky shores throughout the world. But the four species which occur in Hawaii are endemic, found here and no where else! The most common species is the "blackfoot" ‘opihi (Cellana exarata) which occurs on basalt shorelines, from the splash zone high on the shore, seaward to the level of the mean low tide where crust-like pink calcareous algae forms a band on the rocks. Like other snails, limpets have: (1) a head with eyes and tentacles, a mouth on a protrusible proboscis (mouth tube); (2) a broad muscular foot for clinging and crawling; and (3) a soft body mass (containing the internal organs) which is protected by their shell. Living on this part of the shore, the ‘opihi must withstand periods of drying exposure during low tides, as well as heavy surge and pounding waves at high tide. They cling firmly to the rock surface with the muscular foot that acts like a suction cup to keep them from being torn off the rocks. The cap-shaped shell has a low profile and low center of gravity so that the snail presents little resistance to the water as it pounds and pours over the shore. The ribs and grooves in the shell help spread the force of the crashing waves by channeling water down the sides of the shell. Each ‘opihi lives in a shallow depression on the rock that it makes itself, possibly by rasping at the rock with its radula.
  • Life History, Mating Behavior, and Multiple Paternity in Octopus

    Life History, Mating Behavior, and Multiple Paternity in Octopus

    LIFE HISTORY, MATING BEHAVIOR, AND MULTIPLE PATERNITY IN OCTOPUS OLIVERI (BERRY, 1914) (CEPHALOPODA: OCTOPODIDAE) A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI´I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ZOOLOGY DECEMBER 2014 By Heather Anne Ylitalo-Ward Dissertation Committee: Les Watling, Chairperson Rob Toonen James Wood Tom Oliver Jeff Drazen Chuck Birkeland Keywords: Cephalopod, Octopus, Sexual Selection, Multiple Paternity, Mating DEDICATION To my family, I would not have been able to do this without your unending support and love. Thank you for always believing in me. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of the people who helped me collect the specimens for this study, braving the rocks and the waves in the middle of the night: Leigh Ann Boswell, Shannon Evers, and Steffiny Nelson, you were the hard core tako hunters. I am eternally grateful that you sacrificed your evenings to the octopus gods. Also, thank you to David Harrington (best bucket boy), Bert Tanigutchi, Melanie Hutchinson, Christine Ambrosino, Mark Royer, Chelsea Szydlowski, Ily Iglesias, Katherine Livins, James Wood, Seth Ylitalo-Ward, Jessica Watts, and Steven Zubler. This dissertation would not have happened without the support of my wonderful advisor, Dr. Les Watling. Even though I know he wanted me to study a different kind of “octo” (octocoral), I am so thankful he let me follow my foolish passion for cephalopod sexual selection. Also, he provided me with the opportunity to ride in a submersible, which was one of the most magical moments of my graduate career.
  • 25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data to Measure The

    25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data to Measure The

    25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data To Measure The Effectiveness Of Restoration Actions For Australia's Woodland Birds Michelle Gibson1, Jessica Walsh1,2, Nicki Taws5, Martine Maron1 1Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Queensland, Australia, 2School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, 3800, Victoria, Australia, 3Greening Australia, Aranda, Canberra, 2614 Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 4BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Melbourne, 3053, Victoria, Australia, 5Greening Australia, PO Box 538 Jamison Centre, Macquarie, Australian Capital Territory 2614, Australia Before conservation actions are implemented, they should be evaluated for their effectiveness to ensure the best possible outcomes. However, many conservation actions are not implemented under an experimental framework, making it difficult to measure their effectiveness. Ecological monitoring datasets provide useful opportunities for measuring the effect of conservation actions and a baseline upon which adaptive management can be built. We measure the effect of conservation actions on Australian woodland ecosystems using two community group-led bird monitoring datasets. Australia’s temperate woodlands have been largely cleared for agricultural production and their bird communities are in decline. To reverse these declines, a suite of conservation actions has been implemented by government and non- government agencies, and private landholders. We analysed the response of total woodland bird abundance, species richness, and community condition, to two widely-used actions — grazing exclusion and replanting. We recorded 139 species from 134 sites and 1,389 surveys over a 20-year period. Grazing exclusion and replanting combined had strong positive effects on all three bird community metrics over time relative to control sites, where no actions had occurred.
  • American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2017

    American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2017

    ANNUAL STOCK ASSESSMENT AND FISHERY EVALUATION REPORT: AMERICAN SAMOA ARCHIPELAGO FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN 2017 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400 Honolulu, HI 96813 PHONE: (808) 522-8220 FAX: (808) 522-8226 www.wpcouncil.org The ANNUAL STOCK ASSESSMENT AND FISHERY EVALUATION REPORT for the AMERICAN SAMOA ARCHIPELAGO FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN 2017 was drafted by the Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team. This is a collaborative effort primarily between the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, NMFS-Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Division of Aquatic Resources (HI) Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (AS), Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (Guam), and Division of Fish and Wildlife (CNMI). This report attempts to summarize annual fishery performance looking at trends in catch, effort and catch rates as well as provide a source document describing various projects and activities being undertaken on a local and federal level. The report also describes several ecosystem considerations including fish biomass estimates, biological indicators, protected species, habitat, climate change, and human dimensions. Information like marine spatial planning and best scientific information available for each fishery are described. This report provides a summary of annual catches relative to the Annual Catch Limits established by the Council in collaboration with the local fishery management agencies. Edited By: Marlowe Sabater, Asuka Ishizaki, Thomas Remington, and Sylvia Spalding, WPRFMC. This document can be cited as follows: WPRFMC, 2018. Annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2017. Sabater, M., Ishizaki, A., Remington, T., Spalding, S. (Eds.) Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.
  • Biological Assessment

    Biological Assessment

    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BETA UNIT GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY OFFSHORE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No. 1602-1681 Prepared for: Beta Operating Company, LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1240 Long Beach, CA 90802 Prepared by: Padre Associates, Inc. 1861 Knoll Drive Ventura, California 93003 SEPTEMBER 2017 Beta Unit Geophysical Survey Biological Assessment 1602-1681 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 3 2.1 LOCATION ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Project Vessel Configuration and Mobilization .......................... 3 2.2.2 Offshore Survey Operations ...................................................... 6 2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 13 3.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND STATUS OF THE SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA 15 3.1 INVERTEBRATES ................................................................................ 16 3.1.1 White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) ............................................ 16 3.2 FISH ...................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................................ 17 3.3 MARINE BIRDS ...................................................................................
  • Status Review of the Pinto Abalone - Decision

    Status Review of the Pinto Abalone - Decision

    Status Review of the Pinto Abalone - Decision TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary Sheet ............................................................................................................. 1 of 42 CR-102 ......................................................................................................................... 3 of 42 WAC 220-330-090 Crawfish, ((abalone,)) sea urchins, sea cucumbers, goose barnacles—Areas and seasons, personal-use fishery ........................................ 6 of 42 WAC 220-320-010 Shellfish—Classification .................................................................. 7 of 42 WAC 220-610-010 Wildlife classified as endangered species ....................................... 9 of 42 Status Report for the Pinto Abalone in Washington .................................................... 10 of 42 Summary Sheet Meeting dates: May 31, 2019 Agenda item: Status Review of the Pinto Abalone (Decision) Presenter(s): Chris Eardley, Puget Sound Shellfish Policy Coordinator Henry Carson, Fish & Wildlife Research Scientist Background summary: Pinto abalone are iconic marine snails prized as food and for their beautiful shells. Initially a state recreational fishery started in 1959; the pinto abalone fishery closed in 1994 due to signs of overharvest. Populations have continued to decline since the closure, most likely due to illegal harvest and densities too low for reproduction to occur. Populations at monitoring sites declined 97% from 1992 – 2017. These ten sites originally held 359 individuals and now hold 12. The average size of the remnant individuals continues to increase and wild juveniles have not been sighted in ten years, indicating an aging population with little reproduction in the wild. The species is under active restoration by the department and its partners to prevent local extinction. Since 2009 we have placed over 15,000 hatchery-raised juvenile abalone on sites in the San Juan Islands. Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was evaluated in 2014 but retained the “species of concern” designation only.
  • Monda Y , March 22, 2021

    Monda Y , March 22, 2021

    NATIONAL SHELLFISHERIES ASSOCIATION Program and Abstracts of the 113th Annual Meeting March 22 − 25, 2021 Global Edition @ http://shellfish21.com Follow on Social Media: #shellfish21 NSA 113th ANNUAL MEETING (virtual) National Shellfisheries Association March 22—March 25, 2021 MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021 DAILY MEETING UPDATE (LIVE) 8:00 AM Gulf of Maine Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Puget Sound Chesapeake Bay Monterey Bay SHELLFISH ONE HEALTH: SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE EPIGENOMES & 8:30-10:30 AM CEPHALOPODS OYSTER I RESTORATION & BUSINESS & MICROBIOMES: FROM SOIL CONSERVATION ECONOMICS TO PEOPLE WORKSHOP 10:30-10:45 AM MORNING BREAK THE SEA GRANT SHELLFISH ONE HEALTH: EPIGENOMES COVID-19 RESPONSE GENERAL 10:45-1:00 PM OYSTER I RESTORATION & & MICROBIOMES: FROM SOIL TO THE NEEDS OF THE CONTRIBUTED I CONSERVATION TO PEOPLE WORKSHOP SHELLFISH INDUSTRY 1:00-1:30 PM LUNCH BREAK WITH SPONSOR & TRADESHOW PRESENTATIONS PLENARY LECTURE: Roger Mann (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, USA) (LIVE) 1:30-2:30 PM Chesapeake Bay EASTERN OYSTER SHELLFISH ONE HEALTH: EPIGENOMES 2:30-3:45 PM GENOME CONSORTIUM BLUE CRABS VIBRIO RESTORATION & & MICROBIOMES: FROM SOIL WORKSHOP CONSERVATION TO PEOPLE WORKSHOP BLUE CRAB GENOMICS EASTERN OYSTER & TRANSCRIPTOMICS: SHELLFISH ONE HEALTH: EPIGENOMES 3:45–5:45 PM GENOME CONSORTIUM THE PROGRAM OF THE VIBRIO RESTORATION & & MICROBIOMES: FROM SOIL WORKSHOP BLUE CRAB GENOME CONSERVATION TO PEOPLE WORKSHOP PROJECT TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021 DAILY MEETING UPDATE (LIVE) 8:00 AM Gulf of Maine Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Puget Sound
  • White Abalone (Haliotis Sorenseni)

    White Abalone (Haliotis Sorenseni)

    White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) Five-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo credits: Joshua Asel (left and top right photos); David Witting, NOAA Restoration Center (bottom right photo) National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region Long Beach, CA July 2018 White Abalone 5- Year Status Review July 2018 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Reviewers ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review ...................................................................... 1 1.3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Biological Opinions.......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Addressing Key Threats ................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Outreach Partners ............................................................................................................. 5 2.5 Recovery Coordination ...................................................................................................
  • Māhā'ulepū, Island of Kaua'i Reconnaissance Survey

    Māhā'ulepū, Island of Kaua'i Reconnaissance Survey

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Pacific West Region, Honolulu Office February 2008 Māhā‘ulepū, Island of Kaua‘i Reconnaissance Survey THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………. 1 2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY……………………………………………………..3 2.1 Background of the Study…………………………………………………………………..……… 3 2.2 Purpose and Scope of an NPS Reconnaissance Survey………………………………………4 2.2.1 Criterion 1: National Significance………………………………………………………..4 2.2.2 Criterion 2: Suitability…………………………………………………………………….. 4 2.2.3 Criterion 3: Feasibility……………………………………………………………………. 4 2.2.4 Criterion 4: Management Options………………………………………………………. 4 3 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY AREA…………………………………………………. 5 3.1 Regional Context………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 3.2 Geography and Climate…………………………………………………………………………… 6 3.3 Land Use and Ownership………………………………………………………………….……… 8 3.4. Maps……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 4 STUDY AREA RESOURCES………………………………………..………………. 11 4.1 Geological Resources……………………………………………………………………………. 11 4.2 Vegetation………………………….……………………………………………………...……… 16 4.2.1 Coastal Vegetation……………………………………………………………………… 16 4.2.2 Upper Elevation…………………………………………………………………………. 17 4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife………………..........…………………………………………………………. 19 4.3.1 Birds……………….………………………………………………………………………19 4.3.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates………………………………………………………………... 22 4.4 Marine Resources………………………………………………………………………...……… 23 4.4.1 Large Marine Vertebrates……………………………………………………………… 24 4.4.2 Fishes……………………………………………………………………………………..26
  • Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings for 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California

    Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings for 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California

    UC San Diego Fish Bulletin Title Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/93g734v0 Authors Pinkas, Leo Gates, Doyle E Frey, Herbert W Publication Date 1974 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 161 California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California By Leo Pinkas Marine Resources Region and By Doyle E. Gates and Herbert W. Frey > Marine Resources Region 1974 1 Figure 1. Geographical areas used to summarize California Fisheries statistics. 2 3 1. CALIFORNIA MARINE FISH LANDINGS FOR 1972 LEO PINKAS Marine Resources Region 1.1. INTRODUCTION The protection, propagation, and wise utilization of California's living marine resources (established as common property by statute, Section 1600, Fish and Game Code) is dependent upon the welding of biological, environment- al, economic, and sociological factors. Fundamental to each of these factors, as well as the entire management pro- cess, are harvest records. The California Department of Fish and Game began gathering commercial fisheries land- ing data in 1916. Commercial fish catches were first published in 1929 for the years 1926 and 1927. This report, the 32nd in the landing series, is for the calendar year 1972. It summarizes commercial fishing activities in marine as well as fresh waters and includes the catches of the sportfishing partyboat fleet. Preliminary landing data are published annually in the circular series which also enumerates certain fishery products produced from the catch.