DOCSLIB.ORG

Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) SECOND REVISION Secretariat of Environment National Commission Federal Attorney of & Natural Resources of Natural Protected Areas Environmental Protection MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Interior National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Cover Photograph Credits: Top—Wendy Teas, NOAA Bottom Left—NOAA Bottom Right—Toni Torres, Gladys Porter Zoo: June 5, 2011 arribada at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Original Approved: September 19, 1984 First Revision Approved: August 21, 1992 Approved: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________ Eric C. Schwaab Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Silver Spring, Maryland Approved: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________ Benjamin Tuggle, Region 2 Director Fish andWildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________ Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources Mexico Approved: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________ Luis Fueyo MacDonald National Commissioner of the Natural Protected Areas Mexico Approved: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________ Hernando Guerrero Cázares Administrator of the Federal Attorney of Environmental Protection Mexico This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i DISCLAIMER.............................................................................................................................. iii RECOVERY TEAM .................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... xi PREFACE ................................................................................................................................... xiii PART I: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... I-1 A. LISTING STATUS ........................................................................................................... I-1 B. TAXONOMY ..................................................................................................................... I-2 C. SPECIES DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... I-4 D. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND TRENDS ........................................................ I-4 E. LIFE HISTORY/ECOLOGY .......................................................................................... I-8 E.1. Terrestrial Zone: Adult/Egg/Hatchling Stage .......................................................... I-9 E.2. Neritic Zone: Early Transitional Neritic Stage for Hatchling/Post-Hatchling ...... I-9 E.3. Oceanic Zone: Juvenile Stage ................................................................................... I-10 E.4. Neritic Zone: Juvenile Stage..................................................................................... I-11 E.5. Neritic Zone: Adult Stage ......................................................................................... I-15 F. DEMOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. I-15 F.1. Age and Growth ......................................................................................................... I-15 F.2. Reproduction.............................................................................................................. I-17 F.3. Survival Rates ............................................................................................................ I-17 F.4. Population Model....................................................................................................... I-18 G. CONSERVATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS ................................................................ I-22 G.1. Existing Regulatory Mechanisms ........................................................................... I-22 G.2. Beach Protection ....................................................................................................... I-23 G.3. Marine Protection ..................................................................................................... I-25 G.4. Research Efforts ........................................................................................................ I-27 G.5 Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network ........................................................... I-35 G.6. Educational Efforts ................................................................................................... I-36 H. THREATS ........................................................................................................................ I-39 H.1. Terrestrial Zone (Nesting Beach) ............................................................................ I-39 H.1.1. Resource Use ........................................................................................................ I-39 H.1.2. Construction ......................................................................................................... I-41 H.1.3. Ecosystem Alterations.......................................................................................... I-43 H.1.4. Pollution ............................................................................................................... I-44 H.1.5. Species Interactions.............................................................................................. I-45 H.1.6. Other Factors ........................................................................................................ I-47 H.2. Marine: Neritic and Oceanic Zone .......................................................................... I-49 H.2.1. Resource Use: Fisheries Bycatch ......................................................................... I-49 H.2.2. Resource Use: Non Fisheries ............................................................................... I-59 H.2.3. Construction ......................................................................................................... I-60 H.2.4. Ecosystem Alterations.......................................................................................... I-63 H.2.5. Pollution ............................................................................................................... I-66 i H.2.6. Species Interactions.............................................................................................. I-69 H.2.7 Other Factors ......................................................................................................... I-71 PART II: RECOVERY STRATEGY .................................................................................... II-1 A. OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... II-1 B. RECOVERY GOAL ........................................................................................................ II-1 C. RECOVERY CRITERIA ................................................................................................ II-2 C.1. Downlisting Criteria ................................................................................................. II-2 C.1.1. Demographic Criteria ........................................................................................... II-2 C.1.2. Listing Factor Criteria .......................................................................................... II-2 C.2. Delisting Criteria ....................................................................................................... II-3 C.2.1. Demographic Criteria ........................................................................................... II-3 C.2.2. Listing Factor Criteria .......................................................................................... II-3 D. STEPDOWN OUTLINE AND NARRATIVE .............................................................. II-5 PART III: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ................................................................... III-1 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... IV-1 APPRENDIX: KEMP’S RIDLEY THREATS ANALYSIS ................................................. V-1 ii DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions, which are required to recover and/or protect listed species based on the best available science. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the Services), sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. The Kemp’s Ridley recovery plan is a bi-national plan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hepatobiliary Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Pelagic Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School October 2020 Hepatobiliary Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Pelagic Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico Madison R. Schwaab University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons, and the Toxicology Commons Scholar Commons Citation Schwaab, Madison R., "Hepatobiliary Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Pelagic Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico" (2020). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/8586 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hepatobiliary Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Pelagic Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico by Madison R. Schwaab A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Marine Science with a concentration in Marine Resource Assessment College of Marine Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Steven A. Murawski, Ph.D. Erin L. Pulster, Ph.D. Ernst Peebles, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 30, 2020 Keywords: Oil, Contaminants, PAH, Fish Copyright © 2020, Madison R. Schwaab Acknowledgements I would first like to acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Steven Murawski, and my committee members, Dr. Erin Pulster and Dr. Ernst Peebles, for their help throughout this project. Dr. Murawski contributed so much, both to this project and to my professional development, during my time at the University of South Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Skin Lesions in Fish
    THE SEA GRANT and GOMRI SKIN LESIONS IN FISH: WAS THERE A PARTNERSHIP CONNECTION TO THE DEEPWATER The mission of Sea Grant is to enhance the practical use and HORIZON OIL SPILL? conservation of coastal, marine Christine Hale, Larissa Graham, Emily Maung-Douglass, Stephen Sempier, LaDon Swann, and Great Lakes resources in and Monica Wilson order to create a sustainable economy and environment. There are 33 university– In the winter following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, numer- based Sea Grant programs ous fishermen reported seeing skin lesions on offshore fish in the Gulf throughout the coastal U.S. These programs are primarily of Mexico. Skin lesions are a relatively rare occurrence in offshore fish supported by the National populations. People had questions about what caused the lesions and Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the states concerns about fish health and seafood safety. in which the programs are located. In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP committed $500 million over a 10–year period to create the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, or GoMRI. It is an independent research program that studies the effect of hydrocarbon releases on the environment and public health, as well as develops improved spill mitigation, oil detection, characterization and remediation technologies. GoMRI is led by an independent and academic 20–member research board. The Sea Grant oil spill science outreach team identifies the best available science from projects funded by GoMRI and FIGURE 1. A red snapper caught in the Gulf of Mexico by scientists studying fish skin lesions. others, and only shares peer- reviewed research results.
    [Show full text]
  • Lagniappe -- August 1, 2006
    Cooperative Extension Service 500 Main Street, Room 314 Franklin, LA 70538 (337) 828-4100, Ext. 300 Fax: (337) 828-0616 [email protected] Web site: www.lsuagcenter.com Research and Extension Programs Agriculture Economic/Community Development Environment/Natural Resources Families/Nutrition/Health 4-H Youth Programs August 1, 2006 Volume 30, No. 8 SEA MONSTERS The north-central Gulf of Mexico is blessed, or cursed, depending on your point of view, with a great many species of eels. Counting the American (freshwater) eel, Anguilla rostrata, which migrates from rivers through the Gulf to spawn in the mid-Atlantic’s Sargasso Sea, fully 22 species of eels from seven families, can be found along Louisiana’s coast. Without a doubt, the two biggest and fiercest species are the king snake eel Ophichthus rex and the conger eel, Conger oceanicus. Of the two, the king snake eel is the most common. It is found in waters from Florida to Texas in waters 50 to 1,200 feet deep. It is less common in waters under 200 feet deep and most of the eels found in shallower waters are smaller than those from deeper waters. They are almost always found on soft mud bottoms––the softer, the better. In color, they are yellowish-brown above, with a dark band at the nape of the neck and 14 broad dark saddle-like marks on their back. The belly is white. They grow to over 7 feet in length and well over 50 pounds. More impressive, they possess a mouth full of razor sharp teeth that they do not hesitate to use on anyone or anything handy.
    [Show full text]
  • Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Metabolites As a Biomarker Of
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 11-5-2014 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Metabolites as a Biomarker of Exposure to Oil in Demersal Fishes Following the Deepwater Horizon Blowout Susan Susan Snyder University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Marine Biology Commons, and the Oceanography Commons Scholar Commons Citation Snyder, Susan Susan, "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Metabolites as a Biomarker of Exposure to Oil in Demersal Fishes Following the Deepwater Horizon Blowout" (2014). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5436 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Metabolites as a Biomarker of Exposure to Oil in Demersal Fishes Following the Deepwater Horizon Blowout by Susan M. Snyder A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science with a concentration in Marine Resource Assessment Department of Marine Science College of Marine Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Steven A. Murawski, Ph.D. Dana L. Wetzel, Ph.D. Gina M. Ylitalo, M.S. Date of Approval: November 5th, 2014 Keywords: PAH, Fish, Oil Spill, DWH, Tilefish, Gulf of Mexico Copyright© 2014, Susan M. Snyder Dedication This research is dedicated to the 11 men that lost their lives during the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig: Jason Anderson, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Ray Curtis, Gordon Jones, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Keith Blair Manuel, Dewey A.
    [Show full text]
  • FAMILY Ophichthidae Gunther, 1870
    FAMILY Ophichthidae Gunther, 1870 - snake eels and worm eels SUBFAMILY Myrophinae Kaup, 1856 - worm eels [=Neenchelidae, Aoteaidae, Muraenichthyidae, Benthenchelyini] Notes: Myrophinae Kaup, 1856a:53 [ref. 2572] (subfamily) Myrophis [also Kaup 1856b:29 [ref. 2573]] Neenchelidae Bamber, 1915:478 [ref. 172] (family) Neenchelys [corrected to Neenchelyidae by Jordan 1923a:133 [ref. 2421], confirmed by Fowler 1934b:163 [ref. 32669], by Myers & Storey 1956:21 [ref. 32831] and by Greenwood, Rosen, Weitzman & Myers 1966:393 [ref. 26856]] Aoteaidae Phillipps, 1926:533 [ref. 6447] (family) Aotea [Gosline 1971:124 [ref. 26857] used Aotidae; family name sometimes seen as Aoteidae or Aoteridae] Muraenichthyidae Whitley, 1955b:110 [ref. 4722] (family) Muraenichthys [name only, used as valid before 2000?; not available] Benthenchelyini McCosker, 1977:13, 57 [ref. 6836] (tribe) Benthenchelys GENUS Ahlia Jordan & Davis, 1891 - worm eels [=Ahlia Jordan [D. S.] & Davis [B. M.], 1891:639] Notes: [ref. 2437]. Fem. Myrophis egmontis Jordan, 1884. Type by original designation (also monotypic). •Valid as Ahlia Jordan & Davis, 1891 -- (McCosker et al. 1989:272 [ref. 13288], McCosker 2003:732 [ref. 26993], McCosker et al. 2012:1191 [ref. 32371]). Current status: Valid as Ahlia Jordan & Davis, 1891. Ophichthidae: Myrophinae. Species Ahlia egmontis (Jordan, 1884) - key worm eel [=Myrophis egmontis Jordan [D. S.], 1884:44, Leptocephalus crenatus Strömman [P. H.], 1896:32, Pl. 3 (figs. 4-5), Leptocephalus hexastigma Regan [C. T.] 1916:141, Pl. 7 (fig. 6), Leptocephalus humilis Strömman [P. H.], 1896:29, Pl. 2 (figs. 7-9), Myrophis macrophthalmus Parr [A. E.], 1930:10, Fig. 1 (bottom), Myrophis microps Parr [A. E.], 1930:11, Fig. 1 (top)] Notes: [Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia v.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHES (C) Val Kells–November, 2019
    VAL KELLS Marine Science Illustration 4257 Ballards Mill Road - Free Union - VA - 22940 www.valkellsillustration.com [email protected] STOCK ILLUSTRATION LIST FRESHWATER and SALTWATER FISHES (c) Val Kells–November, 2019 Eastern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico: brackish and saltwater fishes Subject to change. New illustrations added weekly. Atlantic hagfish, Myxine glutinosa Sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus Deepwater chimaera, Hydrolagus affinis Atlantic spearnose chimaera, Rhinochimaera atlantica Nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum Whale shark, Rhincodon typus Sand tiger, Carcharias taurus Ragged-tooth shark, Odontaspis ferox Crocodile Shark, Pseudocarcharias kamoharai Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus Bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus White shark, Carcharodon carcharias Shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus Longfin mako, Isurus paucus Porbeagle, Lamna nasus Freckled Shark, Scyliorhinus haeckelii Marbled catshark, Galeus arae Chain dogfish, Scyliorhinus retifer Smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis Smalleye Smoothhound, Mustelus higmani Dwarf Smoothhound, Mustelus minicanis Florida smoothhound, Mustelus norrisi Gulf Smoothhound, Mustelus sinusmexicanus Blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus Bignose shark, Carcharhinus altimus Narrowtooth Shark, Carcharhinus brachyurus Spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna Silky shark, Carcharhinus faiformis Finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon Galapagos Shark, Carcharhinus galapagensis Bull shark, Carcharinus leucus Blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus Oceanic whitetip shark,
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-JMIH-Program-Book-MASTER
    W:\CNCP\People\Richardson\FY19\JMIH - Rochester NY\Program\2018 JMIH Program Book.pub 2 Organizing Societies American Elasmobranch Society 34th Annual Meeting President: Dave Ebert Treasurer: Christine Bedore Secretary: Tonya Wiley Editor and Webmaster: Chuck Bangley Immediate Past President: Dean Grubbs American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 98th Annual Meeting President: Kathleen Cole President Elect: Chris Beachy Past President: Brian Crother Prior Past President: Carole Baldwin Treasurer: Katherine Maslenikov Secretary: Prosanta Chakrabarty Editor: W. Leo Smith Herpetologists’ League 76th Annual Meeting President: Willem Roosenburg Vice-President: Susan Walls Immediate Past President: David Sever (deceased) Secretary: Renata Platenburg Treasurer: Laurie Mauger Communications Secretary: Max Lambert Herpetologica Editor: Stephen Mullin Herpetological Monographs Editor: Michael Harvey Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 61th Annual Meeting President: Marty Crump President-Elect: Kirsten Nicholson Immediate Past-President: Richard Shine Secretary: Marion R. Preest Treasurer: Ann V. Paterson Publications Secretary: Cari-Ann Hickerson 3 Thanks to our Sponsors! PARTNER SPONSOR SUPPORTER SPONSOR 4 We would like to thank the following: Local Hosts Alan Savitzky, Utah State University, LHC Co-Chair Catherine Malone, Utah State University, LHC Co-Chair Diana Marques, Local Host Logo Artist Marty Crump, Utah State University Volunteers We wish to thank the following volunteers who have helped make the Joint Meeting
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Part 1
    375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Seamap Environmental and Biological Atlas of the Gulf of Mexico, 2017
    environmental and biological atlas of the gulf of mexico 2017 gulf states marine fisheries commission number 284 february 2019 seamap SEAMAP ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATLAS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, 2017 Edited by Jeffrey K. Rester Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Manuscript Design and Layout Ashley P. Lott Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2019 NUMBER 284 This project was supported in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, under State/Federal Project Number NA16NMFS4350111. GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS ALABAMA Chris Blankenship John Roussel Alabama Department of Conservation 1221 Plains Port Hudson Road and Natural Resources Zachary, LA 70791 64 North Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130-1901 MISSISSIPPI Joe Spraggins, Executive Director Representative Steve McMillan Mississippi Department of Marine Resources P.O. Box 337 1141 Bayview Avenue Bay Minette, AL 36507 Biloxi, MS 39530 Chris Nelson TBA Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. P.O. Box 60 Joe Gill, Jr. Bon Secour, AL 36511 Joe Gill Consulting, LLC 910 Desoto Street FLORIDA Ocean Springs, MS 39566-0535 Eric Sutton FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission TEXAS 620 South Meridian Street Carter Smith, Executive Director Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Representative Jay Trumbull Austin, TX 78744 State of Florida House of Representatives 402 South Monroe Street Troy B. Williamson, II Tallahassee, FL 32399 P.O. Box 967 Corpus Christi, TX 78403 TBA Representative Wayne Faircloth LOUISIANA Texas House of Representatives Jack Montoucet, Secretary 2121 Market Street, Suite 205 LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Galveston, TX 77550 P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • An Update on the Status of Collections of Endemic Gulf of Mexico Fishes Put at Risk by the 2010 Oil Spill
    Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e8728 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.4.e8728 General Article Five Years Later: An Update on the Status of Collections of Endemic Gulf of Mexico Fishes Put at Risk by the 2010 Oil Spill Prosanta Chakrabarty‡,§, Glynn A. O’Neill|, Brannon Hardy |, Brandon Ballengee¶ ‡ Louisiana State Unviersity Museum of Natural Science, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America § National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America | Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, United States of America ¶ Louisiana State Unviersity Museum of Natural Science, Baton Rouge, United States of America Corresponding author: Prosanta Chakrabarty ([email protected]) Academic editor: Pavel Stoev Received: 04 Apr 2016 | Accepted: 11 Aug 2016 | Published: 18 Aug 2016 Citation: Chakrabarty P, O’Neill G, Hardy B, Ballengee B (2016) Five Years Later: An Update on the Status of Collections of Endemic Gulf of Mexico Fishes Put at Risk by the 2010 Oil Spill. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e8728. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.4.e8728 Abstract Background The 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill took place over 180,000 square kilometers during a 12- week period over five years ago; however, this event continues to influence the development and distribution of organisms in and around the region of the disaster. Here we examine fish species that may have been most affected by noting their past distribution in the region of the spill and examining data of known collecting events over the last 10 years (five years prior to the spill, five years post spill). New information We found that more than half of the endemic fish species of the Gulf (45 of 77) © Chakrabarty P et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Resource Monitoring Operations Manual
    MARINE RESOURCE MONITORING OPERATIONS MANUAL Updated by: Fernando Martinez-Andrade, Program Leader 15 October 2015 TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT Coastal Fisheries Division October 2015 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 Sample Design ......................................................................................................2 Sample Areas ........................................................................................................2 Sample Grids ..........................................................................................................3 Sample Gridlets ......................................................................................................4 Sampling Gear .......................................................................................................4 Number of Samples................................................................................................4 Data Sheets.............................................................................................................4 Duties of Field Staff ..............................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Sedar41-Rd24
    Observer Coverage of the 2010-2011 Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Elizabeth Scott-Denton and Jo A. Williams SEDAR41-RD24 3 July 2014 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-646 Observer Coverage of the 2010-2011 Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery by Elizabeth Scott-Denton and Jo A. Williams U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center Galveston Laboratory 4700 Avenue U Galveston, TX 77551 May 2013 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-646 Observer Coverage of the 2010-2011 Gulf Of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Elizabeth Scott-Denton and Jo A. Williams National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center Galveston Laboratory 4700 Avenue U Galveston, TX 77551 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Rebecca Blank, Secretary (Acting) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Kathryn Sullivan, Administrator (Acting) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Samuel D. Rauch III, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (Acting) May 2013 This Technical Memorandum series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or similar special-purpose information. Although the memoranda are not subject to complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing, they are expected to reflect sound professional work. NOTICE The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend or endorse any proprietary product or material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would imply that NMFS approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein which has as its purpose any intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this NMFS publication.
    [Show full text]