DOCSLIB.ORG

Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Sturgeon Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Sturgeon Assessment South Fork Wind Farm Construction and Operations Plan APPENDIX P1 Assessment of Impacts to Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Sturgeon July 2020 Revised February 2021 Prepared by: CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997 772-219-3000 Prepared for: Recommended citation: CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. 2021. Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle, and Sturgeon Impacts and Underwater Acoustic Assessment. Technical Appendix for South Fork Wind 112 pp. Executive Summary The impact-producing factors (IPFs) of underwater noise, vessel traffic, sediment suspension, seafloor disturbance, trash and debris, visible structures, lighting, and electromagnetic fields (EMF) were assessed for their potential to adversely impact marine mammals, sea turtles, and sturgeon that are reasonably expected to occur in or near the South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF) and associated South Fork Export Cable (SFEC) areas during construction and operation of the SFWF and SFEC. This Appendix is designed to provide supplemental information regarding affected marine mammal, sea turtle, and sturgeon species, and the IPFs that have the potential to reach minor to major impact determination, with an emphasis on underwater noise. Underwater noise is treated in more detail as the species under consideration in this Appendix are known to be more vulnerable to this IPF, and as most of these species are already considered vulnerable populations, more care was taken to address potential impacts. A matrix was developed to identify the IPFs which are analyzed within the South Fork Wind, LLC (SFW) (formerly Deepwater Wind South Fork) federal Construction and Operations Plan (COP). The level of impact associated with each interaction was categorized as “potential impact for analysis” (i.e., a measurable impact to a resource is predicted) or “negligible or no impact expected” (i.e., no measurable impact to a resource is evident). Those categorized as negligible or no impact expected were excluded from this appendix, and information supporting these determinations can be found in the main COP. As an overall IPF, underwater noise has the potential to cause minor to major impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, and sturgeon; however, noise produced from impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, vessels, and turbine operations may have differing impact potentials ranging from negligible to major. Therefore, each of the noise sources were all assessed even if any of the individual sources produced negligible impacts only, they are still addressed in this Appendix due to their contribution to the overall underwater noise impact assessment. Potential impacts to marine mammals were determined to be negligible to major for underwater noise IPFs, which comprises minor to moderate impacts for noise generated by wind turbine operations; negligible to minor impacts for vessel noise; minor to major impacts for noise generated from impact pile driving; and negligible to minor impacts for noise generated by vibratory pile driving. Non-acoustic impacts to marine mammals were assessed as negligible to moderate for vessel traffic and negligible from seafloor disturbance, sediment suspension, trash and debris, discharges and releases, visible structures, lighting, and EMF. Potential sea turtle impacts were determined to be negligible to minor for underwater noise sources, which comprises negligible impacts for noise generated by wind turbine operations; negligible impacts for vessel noise; minor to moderate impacts for noise generated from impact pile driving; and negligible to minor impacts for noise generated by vibratory pile driving. Non-acoustic impacts to sea turtles were assessed as negligible to moderate for vessel traffic; beneficial for seafloor disturbance due to the increased structural habitat provided by the foundations and potential food sources resulting from colonization of the foundations; and negligible or no impacts for sediment suspension, trash and debris, discharges and releases, visible structures, lighting, and EMF. Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Sturgeon Assessment ES-1 CSA-Orsted-FL-21-80520-3182-06-REP-01-003 Potential Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhincus) impacts were determined to be negligible to minor for underwater noise, which comprises negligible impacts for noise generated by wind turbine operations; negligible impacts for vessel noise; negligible to minor impacts for noise generated from impact pile driving; and negligible impacts for noise generated by vibratory pile driving. Non-acoustic impacts to sturgeon were assessed as negligible to minor for vessel traffic and negligible or no impact for seafloor disturbance, sediment suspension, trash and debris, discharges and releases, visible structures, lighting, and EMF. Acoustic propagation and animal exposure modeling conducted by JASCO Applied Sciences, Inc. (JASCO) (COP Appendix J1, P2 [Denes et al., 2021a,b]) was used to assess modeled sound pressure levels (SPLs) from underwater noise resulting from impact pile driving the wind turbine generator foundations reached regulatory threshold criteria for potential onset of behavioral and/or physiological impacts to marine mammals, sea turtles, and sturgeon. The distances to the various regulatory thresholds were dependent on hammer type, pile type, propagation environment, and hearing sensitivities of the animal receiver. The potential for regulatory-level exposures for all species were highest for unattenuated impact piling operations; with potential physiological exposures for certain species. When sound attenuation mitigation was applied to the model, physiological exposures were eliminated for all but the high frequency cetacean group. Similarly, behavioral exposures were highest for unattenuated sources. Exposure modeling demonstrated a relatively low potential for North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) behavioral exposures, even for unattenuated piling operations. Mitigation measures, including sound attenuation methods, are expected to eliminate injurious exposures during impact pile driving for marine mammals, sea turtles and sturgeon and minimize behavioral exposures for all species. No long term impacts are expected from impact piling operations. SPLs were also modeled for vibratory pile driving associated with cofferdam installation or operation of dynamically positioned vessels during cable lay activities. No physiological acoustic thresholds are expected to be met for these activities. Modeled behavioral disturbance isopleths from these activities are large; however, no long term impacts are expected from the behavioral exposures because noise levels are not expected to affect critical behaviors or habitats, and the cable lay and cofferdam operations will have a relatively short duration. Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Sturgeon Assessment ES-2 CSA-Orsted-FL-21-80520-3182-06-REP-01-003 Contents Page Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. ES-1 List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. v Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Impact-Producing Factors .............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Underwater Noise ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Acoustic Environments Within the Rhode Island-Massachusetts Wind Energy Area .................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.2 SFWF and SFEC Acoustic Sources ............................................................................. 5 2.1.3 Potential Impacts From Underwater Noise .................................................................. 8 2.2 Vessel Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Seafloor Disturbance ............................................................................................................... 15 3.0 Description of the Affected Resources ......................................................................................... 16 3.1 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.1 Non-ESA Listed Species ............................................................................................ 19 3.1.2 ESA-Listed Species .................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.1 Green Sea Turtle ......................................................................................................... 35 3.2.2 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Age and Growth of Two Sympatric Squid Loligo Vulgaris and Loligo Forbesi, in Galician Waters (North-West Spain)
    J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. (1999), 79, 697^707 Printed in the United Kingdom Age and growth of two sympatric squid Loligo vulgaris and Loligo forbesi, in Galician waters (north-west Spain) F. Rocha and A. Guerra Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (CSIC), Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo, Spain Age and growth of Loligo vulgaris and L. forbesi were studied by the examination of growth increments in 96 and 135 selected (white zone 510%) statoliths, respectively. Squid were obtained by monthly sampling from the catches of commercial trawling and hand-jigs in Galician waters (north-west Spain) between February 1991 and October 1993. Mantle length (ML) of L. vulgaris ranged from 70 to 480 mm and varied between 70 and 685 mm in L. forbesi. A negative allometry between statolith length and ML or body weight (BW) was found in both species. Sexual dimorphism was apparent in both species, males grew faster and longer than females. The statolith analysis suggests that growth patterns of L. vulgaris and L. forbesi in Galician waters are di¡erent. The exploited population of L. vulgaris was composed of two groups: one formed by individuals hatched in winter^spring and another by specimens hatched in summer^autumn. Squid hatched in winter^spring reached larger sizes at the same age than those hatched in summer^autumn. These two groups were also observed in L. forbesi. However, squid of this species hatched in winter^spring were smaller than those hatched in summer^autumn at the same age. Reasons for this discrepancy are discussed. The life span of L.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Drivers of Diversification in Loliginid Squids with an Emphasis on the Western Atlantic Species
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.20.211896; this version posted July 21, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Original Article Geographic drivers of diversification in loliginid squids with an emphasis on the western Atlantic species Gabrielle Genty1*, Carlos J Pardo-De la Hoz1,2*, Paola Montoya1,3, Elena A. Ritschard1,4* 1Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá D.C, Colombia. 2Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27708, United States of America 3Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia 4Department of Neuroscience and Developmental Biology, University of Vienna, Austria * These authors contributed equally to this work. Correspondence author: Gabrielle Genty, [email protected] Acknowledgements We would like to thank Daniel Cadena and Andrew J. Crawford for their suggestions and guidance during the early stages of this investigation. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.20.211896; this version posted July 21, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 2 ABSTRACT Aim: Identifying the mechanisms driving divergence in marine organisms is challenging as opportunities for allopatric isolation are less conspicuous than in terrestrial ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Movement Patterns of the European Squid Loligo Vulgaris During the Inshore 1 Spawning Season 2 3 4 Miguel Cabanellas-Reboredo
    1 Movement patterns of the European squid Loligo vulgaris during the inshore 2 spawning season 3 4 5 Miguel Cabanellas-Reboredo1,*, Josep Alós1, Miquel Palmer1, David March1 and 6 Ron O’Dor2 7 8 RUNNING HEAD: Movement patterns of Loligo vulgaris 9 10 11 1Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados, IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), C/ Miquel Marques 21, 07190 12 Esporles, Islas Baleares, Spain. 13 2Biology Department of Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 4J1. 14 *corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected], telephone: +34 971611408, fax: +34 15 971611761. 1 16 ABSTRACT: 17 The European squid Loligo vulgaris in the Western Mediterranean is exploited by both 18 commercial and recreational fleets when it spawns at inshore waters. The inshore 19 recreational fishery in the southern waters Mallorca (Balearic Islands) concentrates 20 within a narrow, well-delineated area and takes place during a very specific period of 21 the day (sunset). Another closely related species, Loligo reynaudii, displays a daily 22 activity cycle during the spawning season (“feeding-at-night and spawning-in-the-day”). 23 Here, the hypothesis that L. vulgaris could display a similar daily activity pattern has 24 been tested using acoustic tracking telemetry. Two tracking experiments during May- 25 July 2010 and December 2010-March 2011 were conducted, in which a total of 26 squid 26 were tagged. The results obtained suggested that L. vulgaris movements differ between 27 day and night. The squid seem to move within a small area during the daytime but it 28 would cover a larger area from sunset to sunrise.
    [Show full text]
  • CEPHALOPODS SQUIDS (Teuthoidea)
    previous page 193 CEPHALOPODS TECHNICAL TERMS AND PRINCIPAL MEASUREMENTS AND GUIDE TO MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS SQUIDS (Teuthoidea) Gladius (or internal shell) chitinous, flexible, pen-shaped; 8 arms and 2 non-retractile tentacles. suckers arms tentacle carpus (fixing funnel groove apparatus) head funnel manus eye dactylus mantle photophores photophores fin fin length tail mantle length lamellae modified portion composite diagram illustrating basic squid (teuthoid) features rachis normal suckers vane gladius of squid example of hectocotylized arm in male (Illex) arm I (dorsal) 194 CEPHALOPODS CUTTLEFISHES (Sepioidea) Sepion (internal shelf) large, chalky, rigid; 8 arms and 2 retractile tentacles. tentacular club 2 rows stalk 4 rows hectocotylus pocket striations funnel mantle fin outer cone inner cone spine (or rostrum) ventral view dorsal view spine ventral view diagram of basic cuttlefish features OCTOPUSES (Octopoda) Internal shell reduced or absent; 8 arms, no tentacles. mantle length head dorsal mantle arms web eye suckers ligula length hectocotylus ligula outer gill funnel lamellae (internal) aperture ventral suckers total length diagram of hectocotylus diagram of basic octopus features (lateral view) showing ligula measurement 195 CEPHALOPODS SEPIOIDEA - CUTTLEFISHES Sepion (internal shell) large, chalky, rigid; 8 arms and 2 retractile tentacles. anterior limit SEPIIDAE of striations Sepia bertheloti Orbigny, 1838 FAO names : En - African cuttlefish ; Fr - Seiche africaine; Sp - Jibia africana. Size : females 13 cm, males 17.5 cm (mantle length). Fishing gear : bottom trawls. elongate tubercles Habitat : benthic; captured from 20 to 140 m depth. Loc.name(s) : cuttlebone round, light- 8 rows of coloured suckers of patches about equal size mottled dark and light tentacular club dorsal view Sepia elegans Blainville, 1827 FAO names : En - Elegant cuttlefish; Fr - Seiche élégante; Sp - Castaño.
    [Show full text]
  • Cephalopod Biology and Fisheries in Europe: II. Species Accounts | 115
    114 | ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 325 Cephalopod biology and fisheries in European waters: species accounts Loligo vulgaris European squid Cephalopod biology and fisheries in Europe: II. Species Accounts | 115 11 Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 Ana Moreno, Evgenia Lefkaditou, Jean-Paul Robin, João Pereira, Angel F. Gon- zález, Sonia Seixas, Roger Villanueva, Graham J. Pierce, A. Louise Allcock, and Patrizia Jereb Common names Encornet (France), Καλαμάρι [calamary] (Greece), calamaro mediterraneo (Italy), lula vul- gar (Portugal), calamar común (Spain), European squid (UK) (Figure 11.1). Synonyms There are no synonyms for Loligo vulgaris. 11.1 Geographic distribution The European squid, Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798, is found in the Northeast Atlantic from ca. 55°N to ca. 20°S and throughout the Mediterra- nean (Jereb et al., 2010). It is one of the most com- mon squids in the coastal waters of the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean (Worms, 1983a). In the North Sea, its distribution extends from the northwest coast of Scotland, where it is occasion- ally reported (P. R. Boyle and G. J. Pierce, pers. comm.), to the Skagerrak and Kattegat, and a few old records from the western Baltic Sea (Grimpe, 1925; Tinbergen and Verwey, 1945) are sup- ported by more recent information (Muus, 1959 in Hornbörg, 2005). A record of one specimen la- belled Bergen (Norway; 60°23’N) is described in Figure 11.1. Loligo vulgaris. Dorsal Grieg (1933). view. From Muus (1959). Loligo vulgaris was not included by Massy (1928) in her list of the Cephalopoda of the Irish coast, and an early record of occurrence in the waters of the Isle of Man (Irish Sea; Moore, 1937, in Stephen, 1944) is doubtful.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Ecology of Two Squid Species from the Western Mediterranean
    Vol. 531: 207–219, 2015 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published July 2 doi: 10.3354/meps11347 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Feeding ecology of two squid species from the western Mediterranean M. Valls1,*, M. Cabanellas-Reboredo2, I. Uranga1, A. Quetglas1 1Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centre Oceanogràfic de les Balears, Moll de Ponent s/n, Apdo. 291, 07015 Palma, Spain 2Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados, IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), C/Miquel Marqués 21, 07190 Esporles, Illes Balears, Spain ABSTRACT: The squid Loligo vulgaris (LV) and L. forbesii (LF) are 2 cephalopod species occur- ring in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Bathymetric segregation allows the co- existence of both species, with LV preferentially inhabiting the shallow shelf and LF living on the shelf-break and upper slope grounds. In this paper, the feeding habits of LV and LF were studied for the first time in the Mediterranean, by means of stomach content analysis (1452 and 900 indi- viduals of LV and LF, respectively). The main objective was to determine the diet of both species, analysing temporal and ontogenetic diet changes and inferring predator−prey interactions. Fish were by far the most important prey in both squid, followed by crustaceans and cephalopods. Prey composition revealed the bathymetric segregation of both species in the Mediterranean. Whereas LV preferentially consumed typical coastal species of sparids and gobiids, LF preyed on slope inhabitants such as myctophids and euphausiids. Ontogenetic shifts of diet occurred in both squid, but took place at contrasting sizes, suggesting that the factors triggering them might be species- specific. The diet of small-sized LV individuals was more dependent on bottom-living organisms than in large individuals, which preyed mainly on benthopelagic fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Age, Growth and Mortality of Loligo Vulgaris Wild Paralarvae: Implications For
    Age, growth and mortality of Loligo vulgaris wild paralarvae: implications for 2 understanding of the life cycle and longevity Ángel F. González 1*, Jaime Otero 1,2, Graham J. Pierce3,4, and Ángel Guerra 1 4 1 Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (CSIC). Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo, Spain 2 Current address: Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biology, University of 6 Oslo, P.O. Box 1066, N-0316 Oslo, Norway 3 Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Costero de Vigo, Cabo Estay, Canido, 36200 Vigo, Spain 8 4 School of Biological Sciences (Zoology), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK 10 12 Keywords: age, growth, mortality, paralarvae, Loligo vulgaris, Cephalopoda, Galicia, NE Atlantic. 14 16 Running title: Ageing and mortality of Loligo vulgaris wild paralarvae 18 20 *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] 22 24 ABSTRACT 26 Age, growth and mortality were estimated for the first time in wild paralarvae of the common squid, Loligo vulgaris, by examining growth increments in the statoliths of 273 animals collected off the Ría de 28 Vigo (NW Spain, NE Atlantic Ocean). Hatching occurred all year round, with a main peak during late spring and a secondary peak during early autumn for the period 2003-2005. Paralarval size varied from 30 1260 to 7580 μm and their abundance decreases abruptly as they grow. Statolith increments were clearly visible without grinding in almost all specimens, allowing a reliable estimation of age. Results indicate 32 that the paralarvae are planktonic during, at least, three months. Growth in dorsal mantle length (DML) during this period fitted an exponential equation.
    [Show full text]
  • European Communities (Fish Labelling) Regulations, 2003
    S.I. No. 320 of 2003 European Communities (Labelling of Fishery and Aquaculture Products) Regulations 2003 ___________________________________________________________________ I, Dermot Ahern, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 (No. 27 of 1972) and for purpose of giving effect to Article 4 of Council Regulation No. 104/2000(EC)¹ of 17 December 1999 and to Commission Regulation No. 2065/2001(EC)² of 22 October 2001, hereby make the following Regulations: 1. These Regulations may be cited as the European Communities (Labelling of Fishery and Aquaculture Products) Regulations 2003. 2. These Regulations come into operation on 22 July 2003. 3. (1) In these Regulations unless the context otherwise requires “authorised officer” means one or more of the following; (i) a person authorised in writing by the Minister, (ii) an authorised officer under the Regulations of 2002; __________________________ (¹) O.J.No.L 17, 21.1.2000 p.28 (²) O.J.No.L 278, 23.10.2001 “Commission Regulation of 2001” means Commission Regulation 2065/2001(EC), laying down detailed rules for the application of the Council Regulation of 2002 as regards informing consumers about fishery and aquaculture products, as may be amended or replaced by any Regulation, directive or decision of the European Communities; “Council Regulation of 2000” means Council Regulation No. 104/2000 (EC), on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture product as
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey) Order 2020 Contents
    Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey) Order 2020 Contents SEA FISHERIES (BAG LIMITS) (JERSEY) ORDER 2020 Contents Article 1 Application ...................................................................................................... 3 2 Bag limits for any person ................................................................................ 3 3 Bag limits for vessels and fishing boats .......................................................... 3 4 Repeal of Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey) Order 2016 ............................... 4 5 Citation and commencement ......................................................................... 4 SCHEDULE 5 BAG LIMITS 5 ENDNOTES 9 Table of Endnote References ......................................................................................... 9 R&O.22/2020 Page - 1 Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey) Order 2020 Article 1 SEA FISHERIES (BAG LIMITS) (JERSEY) ORDER 2020 Made 19th March 2020 Coming into force 26th March 2020 THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT makes this Order under Article 2(4B) of the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 19941 and Regulation 3 of the Sea Fisheries (Bag Limits) (Jersey) Regulations 20162 – 1 Application This Order does not apply to the taking of bass or tope by any person on a British fishing boat or a French fishing boat in any part of the territorial sea in which the boat is authorised to fish under the Sea Fisheries (Licensing of Fishing Boats) (Jersey) Regulations 20033 (the “Licensing Regulations”). 2 Bag limits for any person The daily limit of fish of a species or genus specified in Column 1 of the Table to the Schedule that may be taken by any person is the quantity specified opposite that species or genus of fish in Column 2 of that Table. 3 Bag limits for vessels and fishing boats (1) Subject to Article 2, the daily limit of fish of a species or genus specified in Column 1 of the Table to the Schedule that may be taken by any vessel, other than a fishing boat, is the quantity specified opposite that species or genus of fish in Column 3 of that Table.
    [Show full text]
  • Cephalopod Id Guide for the Mediterranean Sea
    CEPHALOPOD ID GUIDE FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA Christian Drerup – University of Algarve, Portugal Dr Gavan Cooke – Anglia Ruskin University, UK PREFACE The intention of this guide is to help identifying cephalopod species in the Mediterranean Sea which you may find while SCUBA diving, snorkelling, a boat trip or even while walking along a rocky shore. It focuses on shallow water and subsurface-inhabiting species or those which at least partially spent their life in depths less than 50 meters. As you may encounter these animals in the wild most likely just for a short glance, we kept the description of each cephalopod rather simple and based on easy-to-spot external features. This guide was made within the scope of the project “Cephalopod Citizen Science”. This project tries to gather scientific information about the “daily life” of cephalopods by analysing pictures of those animals which were posted in several, project-related facebook groups. For further information about this project, please follow the link below: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Cephalopod-Citizen-Science We hope this guide will provide useful information and help you to identify those cephalopods you may encounter soon. Christian Drerup – University of Algarve, Portugal Dr. Gavan Cooke – Anglia-Ruskin-University, UK Common octopus (Octopus vulgaris). © dkfindout.com 2 CONTENTS HOW SHOULD WE INTERACT WITH CEPHALOPODS WHEN DIVING WITH THEM? ............... 4 SIGNS THAT A CEPHALOPODS IS UNHAPPY WITH YOUR PRESENCE .................................... 5 OCTOPUSES (OCTOPODA)
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Open Sea Fisheries in the Alboran Sea Draft Internal Report
    United Nations Environment Programme MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas Status of the open sea fisheries in the Alboran Sea Draft internal report Draft to be used only to support the preparation of documents for the “Mediterranean Regional Workshop to Facilitate the Description of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas. Malaga, Spain, 7-11 April 2014” February 2014 Draft internal report not for distribution This report should be quoted as: UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. 2014. Status of open sea fisheries in the Alboran Sea. By J.C. Baez. Draft internal report for the purposes of the Mediterranean Regional Workshop to Facilitate the Description of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas, Malaga, Spain, 7-11 April 2014 1 CONTENT Acronyms list Summary 1. Introduction: open sea from Alboran Sea 1.1. Oceanographic context 1.2. Regional Fisheries Organization: General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 2. Review of species distribution and population dynamics of fish in the priority area open sea, with particular emphasis on target areas for fisheries and reproductive zones. 2.1. Population dynamics of non-tuna fish in the priority area open sea from Alboran Sea 2.2. Population dynamics of tuna and associate fishes in the priority area open sea from Alboran Sea. 3. Fisheries activities conducted within open sea from Alboran Sea 3.1. Driftnets (Redes a la deriva, le filet maillant dérivant) 3.2. Purse Seiners (Cerqueros, Sardiners) 3.3. Longliners (palangeros, palangriers) 3.4. Trawlers (Arrastreros de fondo, Chalutiers) 4.
    [Show full text]
  • General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Commission Générale Des Pêches Pour La Méditerranée
    GFCM:SAC10/2007/Dma.5 October 2007 GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN COMMISSION GÉNÉRALE DES PÊCHES POUR LA MÉDITERRANÉE GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tenth Session Nicosia, Cyprus, 22-26 October 2007 ADRIAMED CONTRIBUTION NOTES: Some considerations on the concept and definition of the “priority species” for the fishery assessment and management purposes in the GFCM area Preliminary appraisal for the discussion on the criteria to update the SAC shared stocks lists I. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF “PRIORITY SPECIES” FOR FISHERY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PURPOSES IN THE GFCM AREA∗ 1. Background The concept of priority species represents a key factor for the management of fisheries resources. Priority species are very important for the main mission of the GFCM “to promote the development, conservation and management of living marine resources and to formulate and recommend conservation measures”. Thus, the three issues of development, conservation and management should be taken into account when considering a list of priority species. The scientific community, however, faces combined difficulties as the fishery resources in question do not generally fall at once within a discussion of all three issues mentioned above. Moreover, ∗ This paper should be cited as follows: AdriaMed. (2007) Some considerations on the concept and on criteria for defining “priority species” for fishery assessment and management purposes in the GFCM area. Paper presented at the GFCM-SAC Sub Committee on Stock Assessment (Kavala, 17-20 September 2007). FAO-AdriaMed Scientific Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries in the Adriatic Sea: 11 pp. This paper was prepared by N.
    [Show full text]