DOCSLIB.ORG

EFH) Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EFH) Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Appendix H MM S Minerals Management Service Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment Appendix H Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment Cape Wind Energy Project January 2009 Final EIS Cape Wind Energy Project Final EFH Assessment Minerals Management Service for Consultation with the NOAA Fisheries January 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior Appendix H MM S Minerals Management Service Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1-1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 FACILITIES DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 SUMMARY OF OPERATION/MAINTENANCE METHODS ........................................................................ 2-2 2.4 SUMMARY OF DECOMMISSIONING METHODS ..................................................................................... 2-3 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................... 3-4 4.0 FEDERALLY MANAGED SPECIES................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 SPECIES WITH EFH DESIGNATION ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIES WITH EFH DESIGNATION ............................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Demersal Species ..................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1.1 ATLANTIC COD (Gadus morhua) .......................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1.2 SCUP (Stenotomus chrysops) ............................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1.3 BLACK SEA BASS (Centropristis striata) ............................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Demersal Groundfish Species .................................................................................................. 4-5 4.2.2.1 WINTER FLOUNDER (Pseudopleuronectes americanus)........................................................ 4-5 4.2.2.2 SUMMER FLOUNDER, OR FLUKE (Paralichthys dentatus)...................................................... 4-7 4.2.2.3 WINDOWPANE (Scophthalmus aquosus) .............................................................................. 4-9 4.2.2.4 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER (Limanda ferruginea) ................................................................. 4-10 4.2.3 Coastal Pelagic Species ......................................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.3.1 ATLANTIC BUTTERFISH (Peprilus triacanthus).................................................................... 4-10 4.2.3.2 ATLANTIC MACKEREL (Scomber scombrus) ...................................................................... 4-11 4.2.4 Coastal Migratory Pelagic Species........................................................................................ 4-12 4.2.4.1 BLUEFIN TUNA (Thunnus thynnus) .................................................................................... 4-13 4.2.4.2 KING MACKEREL (Scomberomorus cavalla) ...................................................................... 4-13 4.2.4.3 SPANISH MACKEREL (Scomberomorus maculatus) ............................................................ 4-14 4.2.4.4 COBIA (Rachycentron canadum)........................................................................................ 4-15 4.2.5 Sharks..................................................................................................................................... 4-15 4.2.5.1 BLUE SHARK (Prionace glauca).......................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.5.2 SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK (Isurus oxyrhinchus) ................................................................... 4-16 4.2.6 Skates ..................................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.6.1 LITTLE SKATE (Leucoraja erinacea) ................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.6.2 WINTER SKATE (Leucoraja ocellata) .................................................................................. 4-18 4.2.7 Invertebrates .......................................................................................................................... 4-19 4.2.7.1 LONG-FINNED SQUID (Loligo pealei).................................................................................. 4-19 4.2.7.2 SURF CLAM (Spisula solidissima)....................................................................................... 4-20 4.2.7.3 SHORT-FINNED SQUID (Illex illecebrosus).......................................................................... 4-20 5.0 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS.................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 IMPACTS TO BENTHIC EFH................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Permanent Impacts to Benthic EFH......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Temporary Impacts to Benthic EFH......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.3 Temporary Impacts to Eelgrass Habitat in Lewis Bay............................................................. 5-4 5.1.4 Temporary Impacts to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation on Horseshoe Shoal........................... 5-4 5.1.5 Potential for Sediment Contamination of Benthic EFH ........................................................... 5-5 5.2 IMPACTS TO WATER COLUMN EFH.................................................................................................... 5-5 Cape Wind Energy Project i January 2009 Final EIS U.S. Department of the Interior Appendix H MM S Minerals Management Service Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment 5.2.1 Impacts to EFH from Degraded Water Quality ....................................................................... 5-5 5.2.2 EFH Species Mortality/Injury/Displacement ........................................................................... 5-7 5.2.3 Potential Impacts from Impingement/Entrainment of Fish Eggs/Larvae from Vessel Water Withdrawals/Water Withdrawals Associated with Cable Jetting............................................. 5-8 5.2.4 Acoustical Impacts ................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.2.4.1 INTRODUCTION TO UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS ..................................................................... 5-9 5.2.4.2 HEARING THRESHOLDS FOR FISH ....................................................................................... 5-10 5.2.4.3 MONOPILE CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ 5-10 5.2.4.4 OTHER CONSTRUCTION SOUNDS ........................................................................................ 5-13 5.2.4.5 VESSEL SOUNDS................................................................................................................. 5-13 5.2.4.6 OPERATIONAL SOUND........................................................................................................ 5-13 5.3 REEF EFFECT .................................................................................................................................... 5-14 5.4 UNDERWATER ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD (EMF) ............................................................................ 5-16 5.5 ROTOR SHADOW EFFECT .................................................................................................................. 5-17 5.6 WATER FLOW, CURRENTS, WAVES, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ............................................................ 5-17 5.7 IMPACTS OF SPILLS AND ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS .......................... 5-18 5.8 SPECIES SPECIFIC IMPACTS............................................................................................................... 5-19 5.9 COMMERCIAL FISHING ..................................................................................................................... 5-19 6.0 MITIGATION ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 REPORT REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Master Document Draft EFH EIS Gulf
    Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): SHRIMP FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO RED DRUM FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO REEF FISH FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO STONE CRAB FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO CORAL AND CORAL REEF FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC VOLUME 1: TEXT March 2004 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council The Commons at Rivergate 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33619-2266 Tel: 813-228-2815 (toll-free 888-833-1844), FAX: 813-225-7015 E-mail: [email protected] This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA17FC1052. COVER SHEET Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico Draft () Final (X) Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( ) Area of Potential Impact: Areas of tidally influenced waters and substrates of the Gulf of Mexico and its estuaries in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida extending out to the limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Agency: HQ Contact: Region Contacts: U.S. Department of Commerce Steve Kokkinakis David Dale NOAA Fisheries NOAA-Strategic Planning (N/SP) (727)570-5317 Southeast Region Building SSMC3, Rm. 15532 David Keys 9721 Executive Center Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Sea Bass
    SEDAR25-RD16 Last Revised: December 2006 Black Sea Bass by Gary Shepherd Distribution, Biology and Management Black sea bass, Centropristis striata, are distributed in the Northwest Atlantic from Maine to Florida (Figure 16.1), with Cape Hatteras, NC serving as a geographic boundary between northern and southern stocks (Musick and Mercer 1977, Shepherd 1991). Sea bass are members of the family Serranidae, which includes groupers commonly found in tropical and sub-tropical waters. Structures such as reefs, wrecks or oyster beds are preferred habitats. Black sea bass may attain sizes up to 60 cm (23.5 in) and 3.6 kg (8 lbs) with maximum age of 10-12 years. Sexual maturity is attained between ages 2 to 4 for females. Black sea bass are protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning that they change sex from female to male. Born as females, most fish will change sex to males between ages 2 to 5 (Musick and Mercer 1977). The factors that lead to the sex change have not been proven although it has been speculated that the relative scarcity of males in a spawning group may be the stimulus for a female to switch sex. Spawning in the northern stock generally occurs from April to June after fish have migrated into coastal habitats (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Males develop a pronounced blue hump on their heads during spawning season and aggressively defend territory, although actual spawning behavior is not well documented. Larvae and juveniles develop and grow in inshore habitats, and juveniles attain lengths of 10-14 cm by fall. Sea bass remain in coastal habitats until water temperatures decrease in fall into early winter, and then migrate to deeper offshore water along the edge of the continental shelf.
    [Show full text]
  • NMFS 2010 Essential Fish Habitat, TN186
    Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate For Federal Agencies Gulf of Mexico Region National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue S. St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727/824-5317 REV. 09/2010 1 Executive Summary The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) set forth a new mandate for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act support one of the nation’s overall marine resource management goals - maintaining sustainable fisheries. Essential to achieving this goal is the maintenance of suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity. The FMCs, with assistance from NMFS, have delineated EFH for federally managed species. As new fishery management plans (FMPs) are developed, EFH for newly managed species will be defined as well. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential impacts of their actions on EFH and respond in writing to NMFS or FMC recommendations. In addition, NMFS and the FMCs may comment on and make recommendations to any state agency on their activities that may affect EFH. Measures recommended by NMFS or an FMC to protect EFH are advisory, not proscriptive. On December 19, 1997, interim final rules, which specified procedures for implementation of the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, were published in the Federal Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Fish for Your Health and the Sea's
    Nova In Vitro Fertilization Best Fish for Your Health and the Sea's By The Green Guide Editors (National Geographic) Fish provide essential nutrients and fatty acids—especially for developing bodies and brains and make a perfect protein-filled, lean meal whether grilled, baked, poached or served as sushi. Yet overfishing, habitat loss and declining water quality have wreaked havoc on many fish populations. Furthermore, many are contaminated with brain-damaging mercury and other toxic chemicals. If the pickings appear slim, check out our "Yes" fish where you'll find many options available. As for our "Sometimes" fish, these may be eaten occasionally, while "No" fish should be avoided entirely. Photograph Courtesy Shutterstock Images Warnings are based on populations of highest concern (children and women who are pregnant, nursing or of childbearing age). To learn which fish from local water bodies are safe to eat, call your state department of health, or see www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish. Besides mercury, toxins can include PCBs, dioxins and pesticides. In compiling this list, the Green Guide referred to resources at the web sites of the Food and Drug Administration, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Foundation and Oceana among others. YES Fish Low mercury (L), not overfished or farmed destructively Abalone (farmed) L Lobster, spiny/rock (U.S., Australia, Baja west coast) L Anchovies L Mackerel, Atlantic (purse seine caught) L Arctic char (farmed) L Mussels (U.S. farmed) L Barramundi (U.S. farmed) L Oysters (Pacific farmed) L Catfish (U.S. farmed) L Pollock (AK, wild caught) L Caviar (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Voestalpine Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for PSD Greenhouse Gas Permit
    Essential Fish Habitat Assessment: Texas Project Site voestalpine Stahl GmbH San Patricio County, Texas January 31, 2013 www.erm.com voestalpine Stahl GmbH Essential Fish Habitat Assessment: Texas Project Site January 31, 2013 Project No. 0172451 San Patricio County, Texas Alicia Smith Partner-in-Charge Graham Donaldson Project Manager Travis Wycoff Project Consultant Environmental Resources Management 15810 Park Ten Place, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77084-5140 T: 281-600-1000 F: 281-600-1001 Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION 1 1.2 AGENCY REGULATIONS 1 1.2.1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1 1.2.1 Essential Fish Habitat Defined 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 PROJECT SCHEDULE 4 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION 4 2.3 SITE DESCRIPTION 5 2.4 SITE HISTORY 7 2.5 EMISSIONS CONTROLS 8 2.6 NOISE 9 2.7 DUST 10 2.8 WATER AND WASTEWATER 10 2.8.1 Water Sourcing and Water Rights 11 2.8.2 Wastewater Discharge 13 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACTION AREA 15 3.1 ACTION AREA DEFINED 15 3.2 ACTION AREA DELINEATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 16 3.2.1 Significant Impact Level Dispersion Modeling 16 3.2.2 Other Contaminants 17 4.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT 19 4.1 SPECIES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN 19 4.1.1 Brown Shrimp 19 4.1.2 Gray Snapper 20 4.1.3 Pink Shrimp 20 4.1.4 Red Drum 20 4.1.5 Spanish Mackerel 21 4.1.6 White Shrimp 21 4.2 HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN 22 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
    [Show full text]
  • MBNMS Collaborative Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH
    July 31, 2013 Collaborative Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Proposal: Protecting Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat While Balancing Fishing Opportunities in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, South of Año Nuevo Rosy rockfish (Sebastes rosaceus) Phylum Porifera and Class Crinoidea Contact: Karen Grimmer Resource Protection Coordinator Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 99 Pacific Avenue, Suite 455a Monterey, CA 93940 MBNMS Groundfish EFH Proposal TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 8 I. Proposal ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 10 3a. Proposal Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 14 3c. Overview of New Information .................................................................................................. 18 4. Proposed Actions ........................................................................................................................... 18 4a. Spatial Changes ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 626-1520 Daniel J
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 626-1520 Daniel J. McKiernan Acting Director fax (617) 626-1509 Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Theoharides January 3, 2020 Secretary MarineFisheries Advisory Ronald S. Amidon Commissioner Mary-Lee King 2020 Recreational Fishing Limits Set for Fluke, Scup, and Deputy Commissioner Black Sea Bass; Bluefish Rules Pending The 2020 fishing limits for the recreational harvest of summer flounder (fluke), scup, and black sea bass in Massachusetts are listed below. These status quo regulations result from recent decisions made by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (see the ASMFC meeting summary for more details). Fishery Open Season Possession Limit* Minimum Size Summer Flounder May 23–October 9 5 fish 17" Scup, Private 30 fish January 1–December 31 9" Vessels & Shore (150 fish/vessel maximum) January 1–April 30 30 fish Scup, For-Hire May 1–June 30 50 fish 9" Vessels July 1–December 31 30 fish Black Sea Bass May 18–September 8 5 fish 15" * Possession limits are per person per day unless otherwise noted. While the Commission and Council also selected new recreational possession limits for bluefish (including a 3-fish limit for anglers fishing from shore or aboard private vessels and a 5-fish limit for anglers fishing aboard for-hire vessels), states have the ability to request alternative rules that have the same conservational value. The Division of Marine Fisheries is evaluating possible options for Massachusetts anglers; final bluefish rules will be announced by this spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Oyster Grow-Out Cages Function As Artificial Reefs for Temperate Fishes
    1 OYSTER GROW-OUT CAGES FUNCTION AS ARTIFICIAL REEFS FOR 2 TEMPERATE FISHES 3 4 Jessica C. Tallman and Graham E. Forrester* 5 6 Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 7 02881, USA 8 9 10 *Corresponding author: [email protected] Page 1 11 Abstract 12 We compared relative fish density, growth and disappearance rates (mortality 13 plus emigration) on 3 oyster grow-out sites, 6 natural rocky reefs, and 1 artificial reef 14 purposely built for fish habitat. All sites were located within Narragansett Bay, Rhode 15 Island. Trap surveys were conducted in the summer and autumn of 2004 and 2005 16 using a range of trap types designed to sample juvenile and adult fishes. Cunner, 17 Tautogalabrus adsperus, were more abundant on natural rocky reefs and the artificial 18 reef than on oyster grow-out sites, whereas scup, Stenotomus chrysops, and tautog, 19 Tautoga onitis, displayed the opposite pattern and were most abundant on aquaculture 20 sites. The relative density of black sea bass, Centropristis striata, was similar in all 21 habitats. A mark-recapture study on scup indicated that this species grew at higher 22 rates on natural rocky reefs, but had a lower disappearance rate from aquaculture sites. 23 Based on these criteria, the oyster grow-out cages provide good quality habitat for 24 fishes typically associated with hard-bottom habitats. Habitat restoration programs for 25 these fishes should thus consider grow-out cages alongside other types of artificial reef. Page 2 26 Introduction 27 Sea grass and macroalgae beds, marsh creeks, cobble and rocky reefs, and 28 shellfish beds are often described as key inshore fish habitats, and the loss or 29 degradation of these habitats is implicated in the decline of many coastal fisheries (Beck 30 et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Anesthesia and Analgesia in Fish
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1-2012 Clinical Anesthesia and Analgesia in Fish Lynne U. Sneddon University of Liverpool Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_vsm Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Animal Sciences Commons, and the Veterinary Toxicology and Pharmacology Commons Recommended Citation Sneddon, L. U. (2012). Clinical anesthesia and analgesia in fish. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine, 21(1), 32-43. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Clinical Anesthesia and Analgesia in Fish Lynne U. Sneddon University of Liverpool KEYWORDS Analgesics, anesthetic drugs, fish, local anesthetics, opioids, NSAIDs ABSTRACT Fish have become a popular experimental model and companion animal, and are also farmed and caught for food. Thus, surgical and invasive procedures in this animal group are common, and this review will focus on the anesthesia and analgesia of fish. A variety of anesthetic agents are commonly applied to fish via immersion. Correct dosing can result in effective anesthesia for acute procedures as well as loss of consciousness for surgical interventions. Dose and anesthetic agent vary between species of fish and are further confounded by a variety of physiological parameters (e.g., body weight, physiological stress) as well as environmental conditions (e.g., water temperature). Combination anesthesia, where 2 anesthetic agents are used, has been effective for fish but is not routinely used because of a lack of experimental validation. Analgesia is a relatively underexplored issue in regards to fish medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
    Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Prepared for: State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 February 2013 Project No. 53014 Sterling Highway Mile 45 to 60 Draft SEIS Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities February 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Section 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Project Area ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Reasonable Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 No Build Alternative .............................................................................................. 3 2.3.2 Cooper Creek Alternative ...................................................................................... 3 2.3.3 G South Alternative ............................................................................................... 4 2.3.4 Juneau Creek Alternative ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment Gloucester Harbor, Massachusetts December 2001
    Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment Gloucester Harbor, Massachusetts December 2001 Prepared for: Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114-2119 Prepared by: Maguire Group Inc. 225 Foxborough Boulevard Foxborough, MA 02035 508-543-1700 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Description of the Study Area 1-2 1.3 EFH Designation Areas 1-6 1.4 Existing Marine Fish Community of Gloucester Harbor 1-9 1.4.1 Summary of Jerome et al, 1969 Surveys 1-9 1.4.2 Summary of NAI Results 1-10 1.4.2.1 Shore Surveys 1-10 1.4.2.2 Offshore Survey 1-11 2.0 ESSENTIAL MARINE FISH HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS 2-1 2.1 American Plaice 2-1 2.2 Atlantic Cod 2-2 2.3 Atlantic Halibut 2-3 2.4 Atlantic Herring 2-3 2.5 Atlantic Mackerel 2-4 2.6 Atlantic Sea Scallop 2-5 2.7 Black Sea Bass 2-5 2.8 Bluefish 2-6 2.9 Haddock 2-6 2.10 Short-finned Squid 2-6 2.11 Long-finned Squid 2-7 2.12 Monkfish 2-7 2.13 Ocean Pout 2-8 2.14 Pollock 2-8 2.15 Red Hake 2-9 2.16 Redfish 2-10 2.17 Scup 2-11 2.18 Summer Flounder 2-11 2.19 Surf Clam 2-11 2.20 White Hake 2-12 2.21 Whiting 2-12 2.22 Windowpane Flounder 2-13 2.23 Winter Flounder 2-14 2.24 Witch Flounder 2-14 2.25 Yellowtail Flounder 2-15 2.26 Ocean Quahog 2-16 3.0 DREDGING IMPACTS TO FISH AND EFH 3-1 3.1 Impairment of Water Quality 3-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment – Gloucester Harbor, MA Table of Contents 3.1.1 Physical Impairment 3-1 3.1.2 Chemical Impairment 3-1 3.1.3 Biological Impairment 3-6 3.2 Destruction of Benthic Habitat 3-6 3.2.1 Direct
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Recreational Saltwater Fishing Regulations
    Florida Recreational Issued: July 2020 New regulations are highlighted in red Saltwater Fishing Regulations (please visit: MyFWC.com/Fishing/Saltwater/Recreational Regulations apply to state waters of the Gulf and Atlantic for the most current regulations) All art: © Diane Rome Peebles, except snowy grouper (Duane Raver) Reef Fish Snapper General Snapper Regulations: • Snapper Aggregate Bag Limit - Within state waters ul of the Atlantic and Gulf, Snapper, Cubera u l Snapper, Red u l X Snapper, Vermilion X Snapper, Lane u l all species of snapper are Minimum Size Limits: Minimum Size Limits: Minimum Size Limits: Minimum Size Limits: included in a 10 fish per • Atlantic and Gulf - 12" (see below) • Atlantic - 20" • Atlantic - 12" • Atlantic and Gulf - 8" harvester per day aggregate • Gulf - 16" • Gulf - 10" bag limit in any combination Daily Recreational Bag Limit: Daily Recreational Bag Limit: of snapper species, unless • Atlantic and Gulf - 10 per harvester Season: Daily Recreational Bag Limit: • Atlantic - 10 per harvester stated otherwise. under 30", included within snapper • Atlantic - Open year-round • Atlantic - 5 per harvester not included • Gulf - 100 pounds per harvester, not • Seasons – If no seasonal aggregate bag limit • Gulf - Open June 11–July 25 within snapper aggregate bag limit included within snapper aggregate • May additionally harvest up to 2 over • Gulf - 10 per harvester not included bag limit information is provided, the Daily Recreational Bag Limit: species is open year-round. 30" per harvester or vessel-whichever within snapper aggregate bag limit is less-, and these 2 fish over 30" are • Atlantic and Gulf - 2 per harvester not included within snapper aggregate • Gulf - Zero daily bag and possession limit bag limit for captain and crew on for-hire vessels.
    [Show full text]