DOCSLIB.ORG

Cardno ENTRIX Report Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cardno ENTRIX Report Template Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-fishing Activities in Alaska September 20, 2016 INITIAL REVIEW DRAFT Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region Habitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region Page Intentionally Left Blank Executive Summary The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. First passed in 1976, the MSA fosters long-term biological and economic sustainability of our nation's marine fisheries out to 200 nautical miles from shore. In 1996, the United States (U.S.) Congress added new habitat conservation provisions to the to assist the fishery management councils in the description and identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in fishery management plans (FMPs); including adverse impacts on such habitat, and in the consideration of actions to ensure the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. The MSA also requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on all actions or proposed actions that are permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. To specifically meet national standards 2 and 6 of the MSA, EFH descriptions and any conservation and management measures shall be based on the best scientific information available and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. Previous iterations of the report Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-fishing Activities in Alaska addressed non-fishing activities requiring EFH consultations and activities that may adversely affect EFH and also offered example conservation measures for a wide variety of non-fishing activities. The scope of these activities are grouped into four broad categories to which impacts usually occur: (1) wetlands and woodlands; (2) headwaters, streams, rivers, and lakes; (3) marine estuaries and nearshore zones; and (4) open water marine and offshore zones. Alaska extends over Arctic, subarctic, and temperate climate zones. Four recognized Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) exist in these climate zones (NMFS 2010, NOAA 2012). A total of seventeen coastal zones are identified within the nearshore and coastal zones (Piatt and Springer 2007), eight terrestrial ecoregions are defined above the high tide line to interior Alaska (Nowacki et al. 2001). Water, the most important EFH feature, moves through all of these ecoregions and habitat types. This 2016 report introduces an ecosystem-based approach to this key habitat attribute, water, and presents the current understanding of the existing ecosystem processes within these regions and habitats that support EFH attributes1 necessary for fish and invertebrate survival at different life stages. A new section also summaries our current understanding of climate change and ocean acidification, presents potential effects on EFH and includes recommendations for improving our understanding and monitoring of climate change. The exact reason why climate change is occurring is not fully understood. However, climate scientists, oceanographers, and fisheries biologists have identified change in our atmosphere, oceans, and regional weather patterns. An indicator in Alaska is the decline in the extent and duration of sea ice. Scientists at NMFS’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) have suggested that changes to marine conditions have altered trophic dynamics and influenced the distribution and abundance of some commercial fish species in the Eastern Bering Sea (EBS). Furthermore, increasing sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) may have a similar influence on fisheries distribution and abundance. The NMFS Alaska Regional Division of Habitat Conservation offers this report to inform decision makers and the public on activities that may affect EFH and possible EFH Conservation Recommendations to conserve healthy fish stocks and their habitat. 1 An EFH attribute is water and any quality or characteristic given to, or supported by water, related biology, chemistry, or geology that benefits aquatic or marine species and trophic levels at several possible life history stages. Impacts to EFH from DRAFT REPORT – APRIL 2016 Non-fishing Activities in Alaska Page Intentionally Left Blank Impacts to EFH from DRAFT REPORT – APRIL 2016 Non-fishing Activities in Alaska Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 17 1.1 Background on Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................. 17 1.2 Significance of Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................. 18 1.3 Non-fishing Activities .......................................................................................... 18 1.4 Purpose of the Document ..................................................................................... 19 1.5 Overall Approach ................................................................................................. 19 1.6 Effect of the Recommendations on Non-fishing Activities ................................. 20 Chapter 2 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification ....................................................... 21 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 21 2.1.1 Visible Metrics ........................................................................................ 22 2.1.2 Invisible Metrics ..................................................................................... 23 2.1.3 Large Marine Ecosystem ........................................................................ 25 2.1.3.1 Gulf of Alaska ........................................................................... 25 2.1.3.2 Bering Sea ................................................................................. 26 2.1.3.3 Arctic ......................................................................................... 27 2.2 Potential Adverse Impacts ................................................................................... 29 2.3 Recommended Conservation Measures ............................................................... 31 Chapter 3 Wetlands and Woodlands ............................................................................... 33 3.1 Introduction – Current Condition ........................................................................ 33 3.2 Alaska Metrics ..................................................................................................... 33 3.2.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................. 33 3.2.2 Woodlands .............................................................................................. 34 3.3 Physical, Biological, Chemical, Processes .......................................................... 35 3.3.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................. 35 3.3.2 Woodlands .............................................................................................. 36 3.4 Source of Potential Impacts ................................................................................. 37 3.4.1 Upland Activities .................................................................................... 37 3.4.2 Silviculture/Timber Harvest ................................................................... 37 3.4.2.1 Potential Adverse Impacts ......................................................... 38 Impacts to EFH from DRAFT REPORT – APRIL 2016 Non-fishing Activities in Alaska 3.4.2.2 Recommended Conservation Measures .................................... 42 3.4.3 Pesticides ................................................................................................ 45 3.4.3.1 Potential Adverse Impacts ......................................................... 45 3.4.3.2 Recommended Conservation Measures .................................... 46 3.4.4 Urban and Suburban Development ......................................................... 47 3.4.4.1 Potential Adverse Impacts ......................................................... 47 3.4.4.2 Recommended Conservation Measures .................................... 49 3.4.5 Road Building and Maintenance ............................................................. 50 3.4.5.1 Potential Adverse Impacts ......................................................... 51 3.4.5.2 Recommended Conservation Measures .................................... 52 Chapter 4 Headwaters, Streams, Rivers and Lakes ........................................................ 54 4.1 Introduction – Current Condition ........................................................................ 54 4.2 Alaskan Metrics ................................................................................................... 54 4.3 Physical, Biological, Chemical, Processes .......................................................... 55 4.3.1 Hyporheic Zone ...................................................................................... 56 4.3.2 Headwater Streams ................................................................................. 57 4.3.3 Organic Matter ........................................................................................ 57 4.3.4 Marine-Derived Nutrients ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Boreogadus Saida) and Safron Cod (Eleginus Gracilis) Early Life Stages in the Pacifc Arctic
    Polar Biology https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-019-02494-4 ORIGINAL PAPER Spatio‑temporal distribution of polar cod (Boreogadus saida) and safron cod (Eleginus gracilis) early life stages in the Pacifc Arctic Cathleen D. Vestfals1 · Franz J. Mueter2 · Janet T. Dufy‑Anderson3 · Morgan S. Busby3 · Alex De Robertis3 Received: 24 September 2018 / Revised: 15 March 2019 / Accepted: 18 March 2019 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Polar cod (Boreogadus saida) and safron cod (Eleginus gracilis) are key fshes in the Arctic marine ecosystem, serving as important trophic links between plankton and apex predators, yet our understanding of their life histories in Alaska’s Arctic is extremely limited. To improve our knowledge about their early life stages (ELS), we described the spatial and temporal distributions of prefexion larvae to late juveniles (to 65 mm in length) in the Chukchi and western Beaufort seas based on surveys conducted between 2004 and 2013, and examined how their abundances varied in response to environmental factors. Species-specifc diferences in habitat use were found, with polar cod having a more ofshore and northern distribution than safron cod, which were found closer inshore and farther south. Polar cod prefexion and fexion larvae were encountered throughout the sampling season across much of the shelf, which suggests that spawning occurs over several months and at multiple locations, with Barrow Canyon potentially serving as an important spawning and/or retention area. Polar cod ELS were abundant at intermediate temperatures (5.0–6.0 °C), while safron cod were most abundant at the highest temperatures, which suggests that safron cod may beneft from a warming Arctic, while polar cod may be adversely afected.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Alaska Studies Plan
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska Outer Connental Shelf Region Anchorage, Alaska November 2020 Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Anchorage, Alaska Office 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5823 November 2020 The Environmental Studies Program has chosen to “go green.” This document can be accessed in electronic format at http://www.boem.gov/akstudies/. For assistance accessing the document or for further information about the Studies Program and our planning process, please contact [email protected] or Dr. Heather Crowley at [email protected]. The inclusion of study profiles in this document does not constitute a commitment by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to conduct or fund any or all of the studies. Method of procurement may be selected at the discretion of BOEM. The scope of the studies is subject to change prior to initiation of any work. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement of these products by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Cover Image: Sea urchins in the intertidal zone, Cook Inlet, Alaska. Photo credit: “ShoreZone Imaging and Mapping along the Alaska Peninsula” project team; OCS Study BOEM 2018-037. United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT Alaska Regional Office 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5823 November 2, 2020 Dear Stakeholder: Thank you for your interest in the Environmental Studies Program (ESP) of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (2012)
    FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee Federal Geographic Data Committee June, 2012 Federal Geographic Data Committee FGDC-STD-018-2012 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, June 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Application ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Relationship to Previous FGDC Standards .............................................................. 4 1.6 Development Procedures ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Build a Scientifically Sound Ecological Classification .................................... 7 1.7.2 Meet the Needs of a Wide Range of Users ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vexillum, June 2018, No. 2
    Research and news of the North American Vexillological Association June 2018 No. Recherche et nouvelles de l’Association nord-américaine de vexillologie Juin 2018 2 INSIDE Page Editor’s Note 2 President’s Column 3 NAVA Membership Anniversaries 3 The Flag of Unity in Diversity 4 Incorporating NAVA News and Flag Research Quarterly Book Review: "A Flag Worth Dying For: The Power and Politics of National Symbols" 7 New Flags: 4 Reno, Nevada 8 The International Vegan Flag 9 Regional Group Report: The Flag of Unity Chesapeake Bay Flag Association 10 Vexi-News Celebrates First Anniversary 10 in Diversity Judge Carlos Moore, Mississippi Flag Activist 11 Stamp Celebrates 200th Anniversary of the Flag Act of 1818 12 Captain William Driver Award Guidelines 12 The Water The Water Protectors: Native American Nationalism, Environmentalism, and the Flags of the Dakota Access Pipeline Protectors Protests of 2016–2017 13 NAVA Grants 21 Evolutionary Vexillography in the Twenty-First Century 21 13 Help Support NAVA's Upcoming Vatican Flags Book 23 NAVA Annual Meeting Notice 24 Top: The Flag of Unity in Diversity Right: Demonstrators at the NoDAPL protests in January 2017. Source: https:// www.indianz.com/News/2017/01/27/delay-in- nodapl-response-points-to-more.asp 2 | June 2018 • Vexillum No. 2 June / Juin 2018 Number 2 / Numéro 2 Editor's Note | Note de la rédaction Dear Reader: We hope you enjoyed the premiere issue of Vexillum. In addition to offering my thanks Research and news of the North American to the contributors and our fine layout designer Jonathan Lehmann, I owe a special note Vexillological Association / Recherche et nouvelles de l’Association nord-américaine of gratitude to NAVA members Peter Ansoff, Stan Contrades, Xing Fei, Ted Kaye, Pete de vexillologie.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Economic Impacts of Marine Invasive Species
    Final Report to the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Marine Invasive Species Program Contract No. 952.11.04 FINAL REPORT: July 19, 2011 – July 31, 2012 Submitted July 31, 2012 The opinions expressed in this PWSRCAC-commissioned report are not necessarily those of PWSRCAC Project Overview Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) may specifically be classified as invasive when ecologically or economically damaging and/or causing harm to human health. We see the economic consequences of invasions in other states and regions. Alaska has not experienced significant impacts to date but examples tell us it may only be a matter of time, and all the more assured if we do nothing or little to prevent and mitigate invasions. To date, we as a state have not undertaken an economic assessment to estimate how severe an economic impact could be due to marine invasive species. Without this economic analysis the environmental arguments supporting action for an Alaska Council on Invasive Species become mute. There may be impacts, there may be environmental consequences, but a louder voice echoing the economic impacts may be required to get the ear of the Legislature. To this end we proposed to work in collaboration with the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) to assess economic benefits and costs of taking action versus no action on invasive species in Alaska. This project is a result of the Marine Invasive Species Workshop held in 2010 by the Marine Subcommittee of the Alaska Invasive Species Working Group. Workshop participants discussed the status of marine invasive species in Alaska, the state’s invasive species policies and management, and the potential impacts of marine invasive species on Alaska’s commercial, recreation, and subsistence economies.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Florida's State Flag the History of Florida's State Flag Robert M
    Nova Law Review Volume 18, Issue 2 1994 Article 11 The History of Florida’s State Flag Robert M. Jarvis∗ ∗ Copyright c 1994 by the authors. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr Jarvis: The History of Florida's State Flag The History of Florida's State Flag Robert M. Jarvis* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........ .................. 1037 II. EUROPEAN DISCOVERY AND CONQUEST ........... 1038 III. AMERICAN ACQUISITION AND STATEHOOD ......... 1045 IV. THE CIVIL WAR .......................... 1051 V. RECONSTRUCTION AND THE END OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ..................... 1056 VI. THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ................... 1059 VII. CONCLUSION ............................ 1063 I. INTRODUCTION The Florida Constitution requires the state to have an official flag, and places responsibility for its design on the State Legislature.' Prior to 1900, a number of different flags served as the state's banner. Since 1900, however, the flag has consisted of a white field,2 a red saltire,3 and the * Professor of Law, Nova University. B.A., Northwestern University; J.D., University of Pennsylvania; LL.M., New York University. 1. "The design of the great seal and flag of the state shall be prescribed by law." FLA. CONST. art. If, § 4. Although the constitution mentions only a seal and a flag, the Florida Legislature has designated many other state symbols, including: a state flower (the orange blossom - adopted in 1909); bird (mockingbird - 1927); song ("Old Folks Home" - 1935); tree (sabal palm - 1.953); beverage (orange juice - 1967); shell (horse conch - 1969); gem (moonstone - 1970); marine mammal (manatee - 1975); saltwater mammal (dolphin - 1975); freshwater fish (largemouth bass - 1975); saltwater fish (Atlantic sailfish - 1975); stone (agatized coral - 1979); reptile (alligator - 1987); animal (panther - 1982); soil (Mayakka Fine Sand - 1989); and wildflower (coreopsis - 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on the Distribution and Level of Cadmium in Scallop Bractechlamys Vexillum (Reeve 1853) from the Visayan Sea, Philippines
    Perelonia et al. / The Philippine Journal of Fisheries 28(1): 33-43 January - June 2021 DOI: 10.31398/tpjf/28.1.2020A0008 RESEARCH ARTICLE A Study on the Distribution and Level of Cadmium in Scallop Bractechlamys vexillum (Reeve 1853) from the Visayan Sea, Philippines Karl Bryan S. Perelonia* , Riza Jane S. Banicod, Kathlene Cleah D. Benitez, Gezelle C. Tadifa, Bryan E. Tanyag, Flordeliza D. Cambia, Ulysses M. Montojo Fisheries Postharvest Research and Development Division – Seafood Quality and Safety Section National Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Quezon City, Philippines ABSTRACT Bivalves such as scallop Bractechlamys vexillum are considered an essential resource for livelihood and revenues in the Visayan Sea, central Philippines. To date, there are several reports that the local marine ecosystems are contaminated with heavy metals like cadmium; hence, these species are also susceptible to bioaccumulation of cadmium because they feed mainly by filtering particles from contaminated water. In recent studies, scallops are suggested to be a potential bioindicator for cadmium contamination due to their ability to accumulate and tolerate the metal. This research aims to examine the anatomical distribution of cadmium in B. vexillum and measure the relationship between shell weight and cadmium concentration. The sites for this study include Carles, Iloilo, Madridejos, Cebu, and Cawayan, Masbate. Five organs were analyzed: adductor muscle, digestive gland, gonad, gill, and mantle. The analysis for quantification of cadmium in the different scallop parts was carried out by Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES Model ICPE-9820, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). Results showed that cadmium preferentially accumulates in the digestive gland, accounting for 76.39% of the total metal concentration.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog
    Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program (OCS Study, BOEM 2016-048) Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photographs of various fish studied for this report. Background photograph shows Arctic icebergs and ice floes. Photograph from iStock™, dated March 23, 2011. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Ecology Catalog By Lyman K. Thorsteinson and Milton S. Love, editors Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program (OCS Study, BOEM 2016-048) Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Disclaimer: This Scientific Investigations Report has been technically reviewed and approved for publication by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The information is provided on the condition that neither the U.S. Geological Survey nor the U.S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of this information. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Trophic Dynamics and Stock Characteristics of Snow Crabs, Chionoecetes Opilio, in the Alaskan Arctic
    Trophic dynamics and stock characteristics of snow crabs, Chionoecetes opilio, in the Alaskan Arctic Item Type Thesis Authors Divine, Lauren Mallory Download date 04/10/2021 10:11:16 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/6810 TROPHIC DYNAMICS AND STOCK CHARACTERISTICS OF SNOW CRABS, CHIONOECETES OPILIO, IN THE ALASKAN ARCTIC By Lauren Mallory Divine, B.S., M.S. A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Marine Biology University of Alaska Fairbanks August 2016 APPROVED: Katrin Iken, Committee Chair Bodil A. Bluhm, Committee Member James R. Lovvorn, Committee Member Gordon H. Kruse, Committee Member Franz J. Mueter, Committee Member Sarah M. Hardy, Department Chair, Department of Marine Biology Bradley Moran, Dean, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences John C. Eichelberger, Dean, Graduate School ABSTRACT Arctic waters off the coast of Alaska have become increasingly open to human activities via dramatic climatic changes, such as reduced sea ice thickness and extent, warming ocean temperatures, and increased freshwater input. This research advances knowledge of snow crab trophic dynamics and stock characteristics in Arctic waters off the Alaska coast. Here, I provided baseline information regarding snow crab position in Beaufort Sea benthic food webs, its specific dietary habits in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and expanded upon previously limited life-history and population dynamic data in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. I first detailed benthic food webs on the Alaskan Beaufort Sea shelf and snow crab trophic positions within these food webs using stable S13C and S15N isotope analysis. Water column and sediment particulate organic matter (POM) were used as primary food web end members.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Summer Distribution of Cetaceans Near Barrow, Alaska: Results from Aerial Surveys Conducted During the Bowhead Whale Feeding Ecology Study, 2007–11
    Late Summer Distribution of Cetaceans near Barrow, Alaska: Results from Aerial Surveys Conducted During the Bowhead Whale Feeding Ecology Study, 2007–11 KIM E. W. SHELDEN, JULIE A. MOCKLIN, KIMBERLY T. GOETZ, DAVID J. RUGH, LINDA VATE BRATTSTRÖM, and NANCY A. FRIDAY Introduction arctic. For management purposes, four Endangered Species Act (Muto et bowhead whale stocks are currently al., 2016). These stocks occur in the Bowhead whales, Balaena mystice- recognized by the International Whal- Okhotsk Sea (Russian waters), Da- tus, are distributed in seasonally ice ing Commission (IWC) (IWC, 2010) vis Strait and Hudson Bay (western covered waters of the Arctic and sub- and are protected under the U.S. Ma- Greenland and eastern Canadian wa- rine Mammal Protection Act and U.S. ters), the eastern North Atlantic (the Spitsbergen stock near Svalbard), and Kim Shelden ([email protected]), Julie the Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort seas. Mocklin, Kim Goetz, Linda Vate Brattström, Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, and Nancy Friday are with the Marine Mam- Ltd., 301 Evans Bay Parade, Greta Point, Wel- The latter is the Western Arctic mal Laboratory (MML), Alaska Fisheries Sci- lington 6021 NZ. Dave Rugh (retired MML) is stock, the largest remnant popula- ence Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, at 17416 95th Ave. NE, Bothell, WA 98011. The NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, findings and conclusions in this paper are those tion and only stock found within U.S. WA 98115-6349. Julie Mocklin and Linda Vate of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent waters (Rugh et al., 2003), gener- Brattström are currently with the Joint Institute the views of the National Marine Fisheries Ser- ally north of lat.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Artificial-Reef Knowledge to Enhance the Ecological Function of Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations: Implications for Fish A
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Review Using Artificial-Reef Knowledge to Enhance the Ecological Function of Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations: Implications for Fish Abundance and Diversity Maria Glarou 1,2,* , Martina Zrust 1 and Jon C. Svendsen 1 1 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kemitorvet, Building 202, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark; [email protected] (M.Z.); [email protected] (J.C.S.) 2 Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, Svante Arrhenius väg 20 A (or F), 114 18 Stockholm, Sweden * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +45-50174014 Received: 13 April 2020; Accepted: 5 May 2020; Published: 8 May 2020 Abstract: As the development of large-scale offshore wind farms (OWFs) amplifies due to technological progress and a growing demand for renewable energy,associated footprints on the seabed are becoming increasingly common within soft-bottom environments. A large part of the footprint is the scour protection, often consisting of rocks that are positioned on the seabed to prevent erosion. As such, scour protection may resemble a marine rocky reef and could have important ecosystem functions. While acknowledging that OWFs disrupt the marine environment, the aim of this systematic review was to examine the effects of scour protection on fish assemblages, relate them to the effects of designated artificial reefs (ARs) and, ultimately, reveal how future scour protection may be tailored to support abundance and diversity of marine species. The results revealed frequent increases in abundances of species associated with hard substrata after the establishment of artificial structures (i.e., both OWFs and ARs) in the marine environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm Pond Management for Recreational Fishing
    MP360 Farm Pond Management for Recreational Fishing Fis ure / herie ult s C ac en u te q r A Cooperative Extension Program, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U f County Governments in cooperation with the Arkansas n f i u v l e B Game and Fish Commission r e si n ty Pi of at Arkansas Farm Pond Management for Recreational Fishing Authors University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Aquaculture and Fisheries Center Scott Jones Nathan Stone Anita M. Kelly George L. Selden Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Brett A. Timmons Jake K. Whisenhunt Mark Oliver Editing and Design Laura Goforth Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 The Pond Ecosystem .................................................................................................1 Pond Design and Construction Planning............................................................................................................................................2 Site Selection and Pond Design.......................................................................................................2 Construction…………………………………………………………………………… .............................3 Ponds for Watering Livestock..........................................................................................................3 Dam Maintenance ............................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]