DOCSLIB.ORG

The Marine Life Management Act: a Preliminary Policy Assessment of Six California Fisheries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Marine Life Management Act: a Preliminary Policy Assessment of Six California Fisheries The Marine Life Management Act: A Preliminary Policy Assessment of Six California Fisheries How to cite this report Center for Ocean Solutions. 2015. The Marine Life Management Act: A Preliminary Policy Assessment of Six California Fisheries. Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Ocean Solutions (COS) with funding from the Resources Legacy Fund. The report was drafted and compiled by Ashley Erickson (COS), Don Gourlie (COS), Lucie Hazen (COS), Sarah Reiter (COS), Emi Kondo (Lewis & Clark Law School), Rebecca Martone (COS), and Melissa Runsten (Stanford Law School). We gratefully acknowledge the information and revisions provided by Meg Caldwell (COS). We are also thankful to the Department of Fish & Wildlife staff who provided valuable information and feedback during the outline, early draft and final draft stages of the overview statement and six fisheries reviews, including: Debbie Aseltine-Nielson, Tom Barnes, Ryan Bartling, Briana Brady, Peter Kalvass, Katie Perry, Paul Reilly, Craig Shuman, Travis Tanaka, Chuck Valle, and Deb Wilson-Vandenberg. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Content .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Key Observations .................................................................................................................................. 4 Key Management Practices .................................................................................................................. 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 11 California Halibut ..................................................................................................................... 13 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 13 Enabling Authorities and General Regulatory Structure ............................................................ 14 Brief Snapshot ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Meeting the Goals and Requirements of the MLMA .................................................................. 19 Fishery-Specific Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................... 33 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Dungeness Crab ......................................................................................................................... 37 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 37 Brief Snapshot of the Fishery ............................................................................................................ 38 Enabling Authorities and General Regulatory Structure ............................................................ 42 Meeting the Goals and Requirements of the MLMA .................................................................. 46 Fishery-Specific Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................... 56 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 57 Market Squid .............................................................................................................................. 59 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 59 Enabling Authorities and General Regulatory Structure ............................................................ 61 Brief Snapshot of the Fishery ............................................................................................................ 62 Meeting the Goals and Requirements of the MLMA .................................................................. 66 Fishery-Specific Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................... 84 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 85 Nearshore .................................................................................................................................... 86 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 86 Enabling Authorities and General Regulatory Structure ............................................................ 88 Brief Snapshot of the Fishery ............................................................................................................ 91 Meeting the Goals and Requirements of the MLMA .................................................................. 99 Fishery-Specific Challenges and Opportunities ......................................................................... 118 Challenges to Implementation ....................................................................................................... 121 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 122 Pacific Herring .......................................................................................................................... 123 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 123 Enabling Authorities and General Regulatory Structure .......................................................... 124 Brief Snapshot of the Fishery .......................................................................................................... 125 Opportunities and Challenges ........................................................................................................ 143 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 145 White Seabass ........................................................................................................................... 146 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 146 Enabling Authorities and General Regulatory Structure .......................................................... 146 Brief Snapshot of the Fishery .......................................................................................................... 147 Meeting the Goals and Requirements of the MLMA ................................................................ 150 Opportunities and Challenges ........................................................................................................ 165 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 166 Overview Background The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA or the Act), enacted in 1998, was designed to modernize California’s management of its ocean fisheries, and in several respects its implementation has been transformative. The MLMA is based in part on the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, making the management of joint jurisdiction fisheries relatively easier. However, some features of the MLMA have presented challenges in practice. For example, a significant constraint on the application of the MLMA is that the Act allows the Legislature to retain complete or partial jurisdiction over a number of important fisheries, setting them apart from the conservation standards, constituent involvement, and transparency provisions of the Act. In addition, state fisheries managers, California Fish and Game Commissioners, and the fishing community at-large have been faced with key challenges, including data gaps, high compliance costs, and funding and capacity constraints. These barriers have also restricted the broad development and implementation of fishery management plans (FMPs), which are envisioned by the Act to be the California’s primary fisheries 1 management tool. Meeting the FMP requirements within the MLMA has taken an enormous amount of time and resources, with only a handful of state fisheries currently managed under FMPs. To review and analyze the requirements of the MLMA and begin to understand how the Act is implemented in practice, the Center for Ocean Solutions (the Center) conducted a preliminary policy assessment of six state-managed ocean fisheries in California. These analyses were sponsored by the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)
    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Deep-Sea Fisheries Sustainable? a Summary of New Scientific Analysis: Norse, E.A., S
    RESEARCH SERIES AUGUST 2011 High biological vulnerability and economic incentives challenge the viability of deep-sea fisheries. ARE DEEP-SEA FISHERIES SUSTAINABLE? A SUMMARY OF NEW SCIENTIFIC AnaLYSIS: Norse, E.A., S. Brooke, W.W.L. Cheung, M.R. Clark, I. Ekeland, R. Froese, K.M. Gjerde, R.L. Haedrich, S.S. Heppell, T. Morato, L.E. Morgan, D. Pauly, U. R. Sumaila and R. Watson. 2012. Sustainability of Deep-sea Fisheries. Marine Policy 36(2): 307–320. AS COASTAL FISHERIES have declined around the world, fishermen have expanded their operations beyond exclusive economic zones (EEZs) to the high seas beyond EEZs, including the deep sea. Although the deep sea is the largest yet least ecologically productive part of the ocean, seamounts and other habitats can host significant amounts of some deep- sea fish species, especially when they aggregate to breed and feed. Many deep-sea fishes are slow to reproduce, or produce young only sporadically, however, making commercial fisheries unsustainable. Dr. Elliott Norse of the Marine Conservation Institute and a multidisciplinary team of co-authors analyzed data on fishes, fisheries and deep-sea biology and assessed key economic drivers and international laws to determine whether deep-sea commercial fishing could be sustainable. Ultimately, the authors conclude that most deep-sea fisheries are unsustainable, especially on the high seas. This Lenfest Research Series report is a summary of the scientists’ findings. DEEP-SEA FISHERIES As coastal fisheries have declined, fishing in the deep sea has increased. Technological advances have enabled fishing vessels to travel further from shore and locate aggregations of fish in depths that were unreachable years ago (see graphic).
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-62, 73 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act Margaret M.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report
    Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Jeff Hogle and Ken Lujan collecting genetic and fish health samples in Eagle Creek, Oregon. Photo Credit: Maureen Kavanagh Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Prepared by: Maureen Kavanagh, William R. Brignon and Doug Olson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Hatchery Assessment Team Vancouver, WA 98683 -and- Susan Gutenberger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center Willard, WA 98605 -and- Andrew Matala and William Ardren U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abernathy Fish Technology Center Applied Research Program in Conservation Genetics Longview, WA 98632 July 23, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 Geographic Area ................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Background Information on Winter Steelhead in the Clackamas River & Eagle Creek ....................... 13 5.0 Methods ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Provides an Opportunity to Advance a Sustainable UK Fisheries Policy in a Post-Brexit Brave New World
    Marine Policy 120 (2020) 104114 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Short communication COVID-19 provides an opportunity to advance a sustainable UK fisheries policy in a post-Brexit brave new world Paul S. Kemp a,*, Rainer Froese b, Daniel Pauly c a International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, Faculty of Engineering and the Physical Sciences, Southampton Boldrewood Innovation Campus, University of Southampton, SO16 7QF, UK b GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, 24105, Kiel, Germany c Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4, Canada ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Brexit creates a systemic shock that provides a unique opportunity for the UK to implement a new sustainable Ocean harvest Fisheries Policy to better manage the multiple stocks on which future fisherswill depend on leaving the European European union fisheries policy Union. At the same time, the global slowdown of commercial fishing as a result of COVID-19 has reduced Marine fisheries management pressure on some threatened stocks to levels not seen since the Second World War. In combination, Brexit and the Water-energy-fisheries Nexus COVID-19 slowdown have created a unique opportunity to facilitate the recovery of a threatened resource. Nevertheless, challenges remain as fisheries represent only 0.12% of UK economic output, presenting a risk that opportunities for more sustainable management will be lost during wider
    [Show full text]
  • Acipenser Brevirostrum
    AR-405 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration November 1, 2010 Acknowledgements i The biological review of shortnose sturgeon was conducted by a team of scientists from state and Federal natural resource agencies that manage and conduct research on shortnose sturgeon along their range of the United States east coast. This review was dependent on the expertise of this status review team and from information obtained from scientific literature and data provided by various other state and Federal agencies and individuals. In addition to the biologists who contributed to this report (noted below), the Shortnose Stugeon Status Review Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mary Colligan, Julie Crocker, Michael Dadswell, Kim Damon-Randall, Michael Erwin, Amanda Frick, Jeff Guyon, Robert Hoffman, Kristen Koyama, Christine Lipsky, Sarah Laporte, Sean McDermott, Steve Mierzykowski, Wesley Patrick, Pat Scida, Tim Sheehan, and Mary Tshikaya. The Status Review Team would also like to thank the peer reviewers, Dr. Mark Bain, Dr. Matthew Litvak, Dr. David Secor, and Dr. John Waldman for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, the SRT is indebted to Jessica Pruden who greatly assisted the team in finding the energy to finalize the review – her continued support and encouragement was invaluable. Due to some of the similarities between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon life history strategies, this document includes text that was taken directly from the 2007 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Report (ASSRT 2007), with consent from the authors, to expedite the writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBSISTENCE, SETTLEMENT, and LAND-USE CHANGES DURING the MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD on ST. CATHERINES ISLAND, GEORGIA by SARAH GREENHO
    SUBSISTENCE, SETTLEMENT, AND LAND-USE CHANGES DURING THE MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD ON ST. CATHERINES ISLAND, GEORGIA by SARAH GREENHOE BERGH (Under the Direction of Elizabeth J. Reitz) ABSTRACT This research examines the human-environment interactions on St. Catherines Island, Georgia, during the late Woodland through the Mississippian period (AD 800–1580). Results from multiple analyses indicate that socio-political, demographic, and economic changes during this period were associated with changes in subsistence, settlement, and land-use patterns. Archaeofaunal collections of vertebrates and invertebrates are examined from three sites in a single locality, representing human occupation during the entire Mississippian period—9LI21, 9LI229, and 9LI230. Two additional late Mississippian archaeofaunal collections of vertebrates are examined from different island locations—9LI207 and 9LI1637. Fine-grained recovery techniques, not previously used for Mississippian deposits on St. Catherines Island, produced collections dominated by estuarine resources, especially oysters, clams, stout tagelus, sea catfishes, mullets, killifishes, and drums. Previous methods used to recover faunal remains produced collections dominated by deer. This study suggests that, though deer contributed large amounts of meat to the diet, estuarine resources were more abundant and contributed the most meat. A Mississippian chiefdom developed on the island during the Irene phase (AD 1300– 1580), with social inequality, large and dense populations living in communities of multiple, integrated settlements, and maize farming. Zooarchaeological evidence presented in this study suggests these socio-political changes led to new human-environment interactions, compared to the early Mississippian period. Irene peoples used a larger number and wider variety of shellfishing and fishing locations than early Mississippian folk. The Irene fishing strategy caught more large fishes and may have involved a shift to larger-scale mass-capture techniques, such as weirs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Marine Reserves for Inshore Fisheries
    Managing fisheries without restricting catch or effort : the use of marine reserves for inshore fisheries Daniel S. Holland11[a]1 Department of Environmental & Resource Economics University of Rhode Island Abstract Although widely accepted, management systems that directly restrict catch or effort are neither efficient nor desirable for many fisheries, and have failed to conserve fishery stocks in many cases. Fisheries scientists have suggested that closing part of the fishery with marine reserves may sustain or increase harvest. These marine reserves act as natural hatcheries and nurseries in which reproduction and growth are not impeded, and supplement the surrounding fishery. Empirical studies of marine reserves have focused on the conservation benefits only inside the reserves. I develop a dynamic model and numerical simulation of a fishery for which a marine reserve is introduced. Net present value of fish harvests are maximized as a function of reserve size with total effort assumed constant. Unlike previous models, the time path of harvests and fish stocks prior to reaching a new steady-state is determined. This is important because the full impact of the reserve may not be realized for several years. The model suggests that reserves may increase the net present value of the fishery when total effort is high and can not be regulated directly. Higher discount rates reduce the optimal size of reserves. Introduction Conventional methods of regulating commercial fisheries including licenses, catch quotas, taxes on catch or effort, gear restrictions and closed seasons restrict catch by limiting either the quantity or efficiency of fishing effort, or by putting direct limits on total catch (Cunningham 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Tuna Be, Or Not Tuna Be: Using Catch Data to Observe the Ecological Impacts of Commercial Tuna Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean at Varying Spatial Scales
    TUNA BE, OR NOT TUNA BE: USING CATCH DATA TO OBSERVE THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF COMMERCIAL TUNA FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN AT VARYING SPATIAL SCALES by Laurenne Louise Schiller B.Sc. (Hons.), University of Guelph, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Zoology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2014 © Laurenne Louise Schiller, 2014 ABSTRACT Tuna are arguably the world’s most valuable, versatile, yet vulnerable fishes. With current landings over 4 million tonnes annually, all species of tuna from all three major ocean basins are caught, traded, and consumed at various intensities around the globe. Understanding the implications of such an extensive industry is paramount to protecting the long-term health and sustainability of both the tuna fisheries as well as the ecosystems in which they operate. Given that the Pacific Ocean accounts for roughly two-thirds of the global commercial tuna catch, this thesis assesses the trends and ecological impacts of commercial tuna fishing at both the artisanal and industrial scale in this ocean. To observe the importance of tuna fisheries at a local scale, a case study of the Galápagos Islands is presented. In this context, it was observed that over-fishing and the subsequent depletion of large, low fecund serranids has resulted in a high level of ‘fishing down’ within the near- shore ecosystem. Consequently, as fishers are forced to expand to regions off-shore, tuna and coastal scombrids are becoming increasingly targeted. With regard to industrial fishing, tuna vessels (especially distant-water longliners) are known to generate a substantial amount of associated bycatch and discards.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Fisheries Science
    Foundations of Fisheries Science Foundations of Fisheries Science Edited by Greg G. Sass Northern Unit Fisheries Research Team Leader Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Escanaba Lake Research Station 3110 Trout Lake Station Drive, Boulder Junction, Wisconsin 54512, USA Micheal S. Allen Professor, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences University of Florida 7922 NW 71st Street, PO Box 110600, Gainesville, Florida 32653, USA Section Edited by Robert Arlinghaus Professor, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany James F. Kitchell A.D. Hasler Professor (Emeritus), Center for Limnology University of Wisconsin-Madison 680 North Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA Kai Lorenzen Professor, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences University of Florida 7922 NW 71st Street, P.O. Box 110600, Gainesville, Florida 32653, USA Daniel E. Schindler Professor, Aquatic and Fishery Science/Department of Biology Harriett Bullitt Chair in Conservation University of Washington Box 355020, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA Carl J. Walters Professor, Fisheries Centre University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY BETHESDA, MARYLAND 2014 A suggested citation format for this book follows. Sass, G. G., and M. S. Allen, editors. 2014. Foundations of Fisheries Science. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. © Copyright 2014 by the American Fisheries Society All rights reserved. Photocopying for internal or personal use, or for the internal or personal use of specific clients, is permitted by AFS provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copy- right Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, USA; phone 978-750-8400.
    [Show full text]
  • International Conference
    ICCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE On Coastal Ecosystems Towards and Integrated Knowledge for an Ecosystem Approach for Fisheries PROGRAM / ABSTRACT June 26 - 29, 2006 Campeche, Campeche. Mexico ORGANIZING COMMITTEE J. RAMOS MIRANDA. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) A. SOSA LOPEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) D. FLORES HERNANDEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) N. ACUÑA GONAZALEZ. DGPI-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) J. A. SANCHEZ CHAVEZ. DGPI-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) F. ARREGUIN SANCHEZ. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas IPN (Mexico) J. C. SEIJO. Universidad Marista de Mérida (Mexico) S. SALAS MARQUEZ. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Avanzados IPN (Mexico) L. A. AYALA PEREZ. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana – Xochimilco (Mexico) G. COMPEAN JIMENEZ. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) R. SOLANA SANSORES. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) A. WAKIDA KUZONOKI. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) R. G. OCHOA PEÑA. Secretaría de Pesca, Gobierno del Estado de Campeche (Mexico) T. DO CHI. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) R. LAE. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) G. VIDY. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE J. RAMOS MIRANDA. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) D. FLORES HERNANDEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) T. DO CHI. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires, CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) D. MOUILLOT. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires, CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) R. LAE. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) J J ALBARET. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) F. ARREGUIN SANCHEZ. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas IPN (Mexico) R.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework
    Review Draft Review Draft Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework Prepared for The Northwest Power & Conservation Council February 2013 Review Draft PREFACE This document was prepared at the direction of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to address comments by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) in their 2010 review of Bonneville Power Administration research, monitoring, and evaluation projects regarding sturgeon in the lower Columbia River. The ISRP provided a favorable review of specific sturgeon projects but noted that an effective basin-wide management plan for white sturgeon is lacking and is the most important need for planning future research and restoration. The Council recommended that a comprehensive sturgeon management plan be developed through a collaborative effort involving currently funded projects. Hatchery planning projects by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (2007-155-00) and the Yakama Nation (2008-455-00) were specifically tasked with leading or assisting with the comprehensive management plan. The lower Columbia sturgeon monitoring and mitigation project (1986-050-00) sponsored by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Inter-Tribal Fish Commission also agreed to collaborate on this effort and work with the Council on the plan. The Council directed that scope of the planning area include from the mouth of the Columbia upstream to Priest Rapids on the mainstem and up to Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River. The plan was also to include summary information for sturgeon areas above Priest Rapids and Lower Granite. A planning group was convened of representatives of the designated projects. Development also involved collaboration with representatives of other agencies and tribes involved in related sturgeon projects throughout the region.
    [Show full text]