DOCSLIB.ORG

Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Prepared by: Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge c/o National Park Service Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 Pacific Reefs and Hawaiian and Pacific Islands Planning Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 5-231 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96850 May 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval Submission In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been preparedfor Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. The purpose of the CCP is to specify a management direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years. The CCP charts a vision of the Refuge's future desired conditions, the types of habitat that will be provided, species protected, public use, partnership opportunities, and the management actions needed to achieve that vision. The effects of the CCP on the human environment were described in the Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This CCP is submitted for approval by the Regional Director. Submitted by: ~QJAAJJi;/A Frank Pendleton Refuge Manager, Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Approved::::-;--'~'-;;;;--·...::..._:,~:----'--;-;:::-----:-----::::-----:---:-:;:---c:---:--;::---q-'-±-Z:=-7;,"--f-...L...- ~Robyn Thorson, Regional Director, Region I, Portland, Oregon ate t-(;"\~ FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT for the Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The CCP will guide management of the Refuge for the next 15 years. The CCP and EA described the Service’s proposals for managing the Refuge and their effects on the human environment under two alternatives, including the no action alternative. Decision Following comprehensive review and analysis of the two alternatives, the Service selected Alternative B for implementation because it is the alternative that best meets the following criteria: • Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; • Achieves the purposes of the Refuge; • Will be able to achieve the vision and goals for the Refuge; • Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of Refuge habitats and populations; • Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process; • Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge; and • Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound wildlife management and endangered species recovery. Summary of the Actions to be Implemented Implementing the selected alternative will have no significant impacts on any of the environmental resources identified in the CCP/EA. Refuge management under the selected alternative will protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for priority species and resources of concern. A detailed summary of the CCP actions we will implement can be found in Chapter 2, Table 2.1; however major management actions include: • Protecting, restoring, and maintaining habitats including the lagoon, perimeter crustose coralline algal reef, ava, beach strand, and littoral forest. This will include developing monitoring protocols, installing a remote camera system, increasing surveys, implementing a rapid response program to nonnative species, restoring native plants, and increasing applied research; • Protecting, restoring, and maintaining the species that rely on the habitats above, including corals, fish, seabirds, shorebirds, sea turtles, native plants, faisua, and invertebrates; • Expanding outreach, interpretation, and environmental education by working with partners to develop materials and curriculum; • Protecting and perpetuating cultural resources related to Rose Atoll; and • Focusing scientific information and research needs to better support adaptive management on the Refuge. Public Involvement and Changes to the Selected Alternative Based on Comments Beginning with the public scoping in 2009, the planning process incorporated public involvement in developing and reviewing the CCP. This included seven public open houses/meetings, three planning updates, updates provided through meetings with partners, elected officials, and chiefs, Notices of Availability in the Federal Register, website postings, mail and email list circulations, news releases, and public review and comment on the Draft CCP/EA during the extended public comment period of October 9-November 27, 2012. Public involvement details, our responses to comments, and any changes made to the CCP are outlined in detail in Appendix J. Based on public comments received, two new research strategies (i.e., to investigate breeding seabird diets and to correlate seabird reproduction with oceanographic conditions and prey locations) were added in Objective 6.2, clarification on the relationship between seabirds and pelagic fish was made on a section of the biological chapter, and a strategy to work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to identifY the Refuge on nautical charts and other marine information products was added to a revised law enforcement section in Chapter 2. Some additional text changes were made to improve readability and accuracy. Conclusions Based on review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting references, I have determined that implementing Alternative B as the CCP for management of Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of I 969. Accordingly, the Service is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement. S. Regional Director, Region I 't-t.O..<$' Portland, Oregon Supporting References U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region I. Portland, OR. 313 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region I. Portland, OR. Note: This Finding ofNo Significant Impact and supporting references are on file at the Rose Atoll NWR in the National Park Service office, Pago Pago, American Samoa; the Pacific Reefs National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 5-23 I, Honolulu, Hawai'i, 96826; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Planning and Visitor Services, 9 I I NE 1 I th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97232. These documents can also be found at www.fws.gov/roseatolllplanning.htrnl. These documents are available for public inspection. Interested and affected parties are being notified of our decision. Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ......................................................................................1-1 1.1Purpose and Need for the CCP ..................................................................................................1-2 1.2 Legal and Policy Guidance .......................................................................................................1-2 1.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals ....................................................... 1-5 1.2.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 ........................................ 1-5 1.2.5 Presidential Proclamation 8337 ........................................................................................ 1-6 1.2.6 Other Laws and Mandates................................................................................................. 1-7 1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes .........................................................................................1-8 1.3.1 Refuge Establishment ....................................................................................................... 1-8 1.3.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 1-8 1.3.3 Land Status and Ownership .............................................................................................. 1-8 1.4 Refuge Goals ...........................................................................................................................1-11 1.5 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts ...................................................................................1-12 1.6 Planning and Issue Identification ............................................................................................1-13 1.6.1 Issues Addressed in the CCP .......................................................................................... 1-13 1.6.2 Issues outside the Scope of the CCP ............................................................................... 1-13 Chapter 2. Refuge Management Direction .....................................................................................2-1 2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................2-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Field Guide to the Nonindigenous Marine Fishes of Florida
    Field Guide to the Nonindigenous Marine Fishes of Florida Schofield, P. J., J. A. Morris, Jr. and L. Akins Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use by the United States goverment. Pamela J. Schofield, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Florida Integrated Science Center 7920 NW 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653 [email protected] James A. Morris, Jr., Ph.D. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research 101 Pivers Island Road Beaufort, NC 28516 [email protected] Lad Akins Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) 98300 Overseas Highway Key Largo, FL 33037 [email protected] Suggested Citation: Schofield, P. J., J. A. Morris, Jr. and L. Akins. 2009. Field Guide to Nonindigenous Marine Fishes of Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 92. Field Guide to Nonindigenous Marine Fishes of Florida Pamela J. Schofield, Ph.D. James A. Morris, Jr., Ph.D. Lad Akins NOAA, National Ocean Service National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 92. September 2009 United States Department of National Oceanic and National Ocean Service Commerce Atmospheric Administration Gary F. Locke Jane Lubchenco John H. Dunnigan Secretary Administrator Assistant Administrator Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................ i Methods .....................................................................................................ii
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from the Polypipapiliotrematinae N
    Accepted Manuscript Intermediate host switches drive diversification among the largest trematode family: evidence from the Polypipapiliotrematinae n. subf. (Opecoelidae), par- asites transmitted to butterflyfishes via predation of coral polyps Storm B. Martin, Pierre Sasal, Scott C. Cutmore, Selina Ward, Greta S. Aeby, Thomas H. Cribb PII: S0020-7519(18)30242-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.09.003 Reference: PARA 4108 To appear in: International Journal for Parasitology Received Date: 14 May 2018 Revised Date: 5 September 2018 Accepted Date: 6 September 2018 Please cite this article as: Martin, S.B., Sasal, P., Cutmore, S.C., Ward, S., Aeby, G.S., Cribb, T.H., Intermediate host switches drive diversification among the largest trematode family: evidence from the Polypipapiliotrematinae n. subf. (Opecoelidae), parasites transmitted to butterflyfishes via predation of coral polyps, International Journal for Parasitology (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.09.003 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Intermediate host switches drive diversification among the largest trematode family: evidence from the Polypipapiliotrematinae n. subf. (Opecoelidae), parasites transmitted to butterflyfishes via predation of coral polyps Storm B. Martina,*, Pierre Sasalb,c, Scott C.
    [Show full text]
  • Shyama Pagad Programme Officer, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group
    Final Report for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Development Compile and Review Invasive Alien Species Information Shyama Pagad Programme Officer, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group 1 Table of Contents Glossary and Definitions ................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Alien and Invasive Species in Kiribati .............................................................................................. 7 Key Information Sources ................................................................................................................. 7 Results of information review ......................................................................................................... 8 SECTION 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Pathways of introduction and spread of invasive alien species ................................................... 10 SECTION 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Kiribati and its biodiversity ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Checklist of CITES Listed Coral Species Part II
    CoP16 Doc. 43.1 (Rev. 1) Annex 5.2 (English only / Únicamente en inglés / Seulement en anglais) Taxonomic Checklist of CITES listed Coral Species Part II CORAL SPECIES AND SYNONYMS CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED IN THE UNEP‐WCMC DATABASE 1. Scleractinia families Family Name Accepted Name Species Author Nomenclature Reference Synonyms ACROPORIDAE Acropora abrolhosensis Veron, 1985 Veron (2000) Madrepora crassa Milne Edwards & Haime, 1860; ACROPORIDAE Acropora abrotanoides (Lamarck, 1816) Veron (2000) Madrepora abrotanoides Lamarck, 1816; Acropora mangarevensis Vaughan, 1906 ACROPORIDAE Acropora aculeus (Dana, 1846) Veron (2000) Madrepora aculeus Dana, 1846 Madrepora acuminata Verrill, 1864; Madrepora diffusa ACROPORIDAE Acropora acuminata (Verrill, 1864) Veron (2000) Verrill, 1864; Acropora diffusa (Verrill, 1864); Madrepora nigra Brook, 1892 ACROPORIDAE Acropora akajimensis Veron, 1990 Veron (2000) Madrepora coronata Brook, 1892; Madrepora ACROPORIDAE Acropora anthocercis (Brook, 1893) Veron (2000) anthocercis Brook, 1893 ACROPORIDAE Acropora arabensis Hodgson & Carpenter, 1995 Veron (2000) Madrepora aspera Dana, 1846; Acropora cribripora (Dana, 1846); Madrepora cribripora Dana, 1846; Acropora manni (Quelch, 1886); Madrepora manni ACROPORIDAE Acropora aspera (Dana, 1846) Veron (2000) Quelch, 1886; Acropora hebes (Dana, 1846); Madrepora hebes Dana, 1846; Acropora yaeyamaensis Eguchi & Shirai, 1977 ACROPORIDAE Acropora austera (Dana, 1846) Veron (2000) Madrepora austera Dana, 1846 ACROPORIDAE Acropora awi Wallace & Wolstenholme, 1998 Veron (2000) ACROPORIDAE Acropora azurea Veron & Wallace, 1984 Veron (2000) ACROPORIDAE Acropora batunai Wallace, 1997 Veron (2000) ACROPORIDAE Acropora bifurcata Nemenzo, 1971 Veron (2000) ACROPORIDAE Acropora branchi Riegl, 1995 Veron (2000) Madrepora brueggemanni Brook, 1891; Isopora ACROPORIDAE Acropora brueggemanni (Brook, 1891) Veron (2000) brueggemanni (Brook, 1891) ACROPORIDAE Acropora bushyensis Veron & Wallace, 1984 Veron (2000) Acropora fasciculare Latypov, 1992 ACROPORIDAE Acropora cardenae Wells, 1985 Veron (2000) CoP16 Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan Conservation Seabird Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region 120 0’0"E 140 0’0"E 160 0’0"E 180 0’0" 160 0’0"W 140 0’0"W 120 0’0"W 100 0’0"W RUSSIA CANADA 0’0"N 0’0"N 50 50 WA CHINA US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region OR ID AN NV JAP CA H A 0’0"N I W 0’0"N 30 S A 30 N L I ort I Main Hawaiian Islands Commonwealth of the hwe A stern A (see inset below) Northern Mariana Islands Haw N aiian Isla D N nds S P a c i f i c Wake Atoll S ND ANA O c e a n LA RI IS Johnston Atoll MA Guam L I 0’0"N 0’0"N N 10 10 Kingman Reef E Palmyra Atoll I S 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W L Howland Island Equator A M a i n H a w a i i a n I s l a n d s Baker Island Jarvis N P H O E N I X D IN D Island Kauai S 0’0"N ONE 0’0"N I S L A N D S 22 SI 22 A PAPUA NEW Niihau Oahu GUINEA Molokai Maui 0’0"S Lanai 0’0"S 10 AMERICAN P a c i f i c 10 Kahoolawe SAMOA O c e a n Hawaii 0’0"N 0’0"N 20 FIJI 20 AUSTRALIA 0 200 Miles 0 2,000 ES - OTS/FR Miles September 2003 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W (800) 244-WILD http://www.fws.gov Information U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolutionary Enigma of the Pygmy Angelfishes from the Centropyge
    1 1 Original Article 2 After continents divide: comparative phylogeography of reef fishes from the Red 3 Sea and Indian Ocean 4 Joseph D. DiBattista1*, Michael L. Berumen2,3, Michelle R. Gaither4, Luiz A. 5 Rocha4, Jeff A. Eble5, J. Howard Choat6, Matthew T. Craig7, Derek J. Skillings1 6 and Brian W. Bowen1 7 1Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, Kāne‘ohe, HI 96744, USA, 2Red Sea 8 Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 9 Saudi Arabia, 3 Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 10 Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA, 4Section of Ichthyology, California Academy of 11 Sciences, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA, 5Department of Biology, University of 12 West Florida, Pensacola, FL 32514, USA, 6School of Marine and Tropical 13 Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia, 7Department 14 of Marine Sciences and Environmental Studies, University of San Diego, San 15 Diego, CA 92110, USA 16 17 *Correspondence: Joseph D. DiBattista, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, P.O. 18 Box 1346, Kāne‘ohe, HI 96744, USA. 19 E-mail: [email protected] 2 20 Running header: Phylogeography of Red Sea reef fishes 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ABSTRACT 33 Aim The Red Sea is a biodiversity hotspot characterized by unique marine fauna 34 and high endemism. This sea began forming approximately 24 million years ago 35 with the separation of the African and Arabian plates, and has been characterized 36 by periods of desiccation, hypersalinity and intermittent connection to the Indian 3 37 Ocean. We aim to evaluate the impact of these events on the genetic architecture 38 of the Red Sea reef fish fauna.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasites of Coral Reef Fish: How Much Do We Know? with a Bibliography of Fish Parasites in New Caledonia
    Belg. J. Zool., 140 (Suppl.): 155-190 July 2010 Parasites of coral reef fish: how much do we know? With a bibliography of fish parasites in New Caledonia Jean-Lou Justine (1) UMR 7138 Systématique, Adaptation, Évolution, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57, rue Cuvier, F-75321 Paris Cedex 05, France (2) Aquarium des lagons, B.P. 8185, 98807 Nouméa, Nouvelle-Calédonie Corresponding author: Jean-Lou Justine; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. A compilation of 107 references dealing with fish parasites in New Caledonia permitted the production of a parasite-host list and a host-parasite list. The lists include Turbellaria, Monopisthocotylea, Polyopisthocotylea, Digenea, Cestoda, Nematoda, Copepoda, Isopoda, Acanthocephala and Hirudinea, with 580 host-parasite combinations, corresponding with more than 370 species of parasites. Protozoa are not included. Platyhelminthes are the major group, with 239 species, including 98 monopisthocotylean monogeneans and 105 digeneans. Copepods include 61 records, and nematodes include 41 records. The list of fish recorded with parasites includes 195 species, in which most (ca. 170 species) are coral reef associated, the rest being a few deep-sea, pelagic or freshwater fishes. The serranids, lethrinids and lutjanids are the most commonly represented fish families. Although a list of published records does not provide a reliable estimate of biodiversity because of the important bias in publications being mainly in the domain of interest of the authors, it provides a basis to compare parasite biodiversity with other localities, and especially with other coral reefs. The present list is probably the most complete published account of parasite biodiversity of coral reef fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • CLV Chinese Language Lessons Sen Lin Hu Chinese Language Camp Lessons for the Classroom
    CLV Chinese Language Lessons Sen Lin Hu Chinese Language Camp Lessons For the Classroom Date: Class: Chinese Language Level: Novice High Grade High School Day in 1 Minutes 70 Unit Geography of China: How is my experience in China influenced by where I am? Unit Theme and Question: STAGE 1: What will learners be able to do with what they know by the end of this lesson? DO KNOW What are the learning targets for this lesson? What vocabulary, grammatical structures, language chunks, cultural knowledge, and content information do learners need to accomplish the lesson can-do? Learners will be able to: • Vocabulary: 沙漠， 高原， 高山， 小山， 河流， 森林， • Compare the shape of China to a rooster. 草原， 大海， 耕地（农田），公鸡 • Recognize and name 9 main geographical features of China: • Culture： Geographical location of landforms in China desert, mountains, hills, ocean, grassland, farmland, plateau, • Radicals: 木，艹， 水 forest, river. • Sentence structures: 在 中国（direction）有 ——。 • Locate these geographical features on a map of China • Identify 3 radicals in characters related to geography 在中国西北有沙漠和高原。 • Form sentences describing the locations of landforms (In China’s northwest there is desert, and high plateau.) STAGE 2: How will learners demonstrate what they can do with what they know by the end of the lesson? What will learners do (learning tasks/activities/formative assessments) to demonstrate they can meet the lesson can-do? Learners will: • select from multiple possibilities which animal is represented in the shape of China • name 9 landforms found in China, match
    [Show full text]
  • Reef Fishes of the Bird's Head Peninsula, West
    Check List 5(3): 587–628, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X LISTS OF SPECIES Reef fishes of the Bird’s Head Peninsula, West Papua, Indonesia Gerald R. Allen 1 Mark V. Erdmann 2 1 Department of Aquatic Zoology, Western Australian Museum. Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, Perth, Western Australia 6986. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Conservation International Indonesia Marine Program. Jl. Dr. Muwardi No. 17, Renon, Denpasar 80235 Indonesia. Abstract A checklist of shallow (to 60 m depth) reef fishes is provided for the Bird’s Head Peninsula region of West Papua, Indonesia. The area, which occupies the extreme western end of New Guinea, contains the world’s most diverse assemblage of coral reef fishes. The current checklist, which includes both historical records and recent survey results, includes 1,511 species in 451 genera and 111 families. Respective species totals for the three main coral reef areas – Raja Ampat Islands, Fakfak-Kaimana coast, and Cenderawasih Bay – are 1320, 995, and 877. In addition to its extraordinary species diversity, the region exhibits a remarkable level of endemism considering its relatively small area. A total of 26 species in 14 families are currently considered to be confined to the region. Introduction and finally a complex geologic past highlighted The region consisting of eastern Indonesia, East by shifting island arcs, oceanic plate collisions, Timor, Sabah, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and widely fluctuating sea levels (Polhemus and the Solomon Islands is the global centre of 2007). reef fish diversity (Allen 2008). Approximately 2,460 species or 60 percent of the entire reef fish The Bird’s Head Peninsula and surrounding fauna of the Indo-West Pacific inhabits this waters has attracted the attention of naturalists and region, which is commonly referred to as the scientists ever since it was first visited by Coral Triangle (CT).
    [Show full text]
  • Albatross Or Mōlī (Phoebastria Immutabilis) Black-Footed Albatross Or Ka’Upu (Phoebastria Nigripes) Short-Tailed Albatross (Phoebastria Albatrus)
    Hawaiian Bird Conservation Action Plan Focal Species: Laysan Albatross or Mōlī (Phoebastria immutabilis) Black-footed Albatross or Ka’upu (Phoebastria nigripes) Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) Synopsis: These three North Pacific albatrosses are demographically similar, share vast oceanic ranges, and face similar threats. Laysan and Black-footed Albatrosses nest primarily in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, while the Short-tailed Albatross nests mainly on islands near Japan but forages extensively in U.S. waters. The Short-tailed Albatross was once thought to be extinct but its population has been growing steadily since it was rediscovered in 1951 and now numbers over 3,000 birds. The Laysan is the most numerous albatross species in the world with a population over 1.5 million, but its trend has been hard to determine because of fluctuations in number of breeding pairs. The Black-footed Albatross is one-tenth as numerous as the Laysan and its trend also has been difficult to determine. Fisheries bycatch caused unsustainable mortality of adults in all three species but has been greatly reduced in the past 10-20 years. Climate change and sea level rise are perhaps the greatest long-term threat to Laysan and Black-footed Albatrosses because their largest colonies are on low-lying atolls. Protecting and creating colonies on higher islands and managing non-native predators and human conflicts may become keys to their survival. Laysan, Black-footed, and Short-tailed Albatrosses (left to right), Midway. Photos Eric VanderWerf Status
    [Show full text]
  • American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2017
    ANNUAL STOCK ASSESSMENT AND FISHERY EVALUATION REPORT: AMERICAN SAMOA ARCHIPELAGO FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN 2017 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400 Honolulu, HI 96813 PHONE: (808) 522-8220 FAX: (808) 522-8226 www.wpcouncil.org The ANNUAL STOCK ASSESSMENT AND FISHERY EVALUATION REPORT for the AMERICAN SAMOA ARCHIPELAGO FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN 2017 was drafted by the Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team. This is a collaborative effort primarily between the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, NMFS-Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Division of Aquatic Resources (HI) Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (AS), Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (Guam), and Division of Fish and Wildlife (CNMI). This report attempts to summarize annual fishery performance looking at trends in catch, effort and catch rates as well as provide a source document describing various projects and activities being undertaken on a local and federal level. The report also describes several ecosystem considerations including fish biomass estimates, biological indicators, protected species, habitat, climate change, and human dimensions. Information like marine spatial planning and best scientific information available for each fishery are described. This report provides a summary of annual catches relative to the Annual Catch Limits established by the Council in collaboration with the local fishery management agencies. Edited By: Marlowe Sabater, Asuka Ishizaki, Thomas Remington, and Sylvia Spalding, WPRFMC. This document can be cited as follows: WPRFMC, 2018. Annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2017. Sabater, M., Ishizaki, A., Remington, T., Spalding, S. (Eds.) Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.
    [Show full text]
  • May 24, 2021 Mr. Michael D. Tosatto Pacific Islands Regional Office
    May 24, 2021 Mr. Michael D. Tosatto Pacific Islands Regional Office NOAA Inouye Regional Center 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176 Honolulu, HI 96818 RE: Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Seven Threatened Corals in U.S. Waters in the Indo-Pacific (NOAA-NMFS-2016-0131) Dear Mike: The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Council) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the seven threatened corals in U.S. waters in the Indo-Pacific pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)1. The Council appreciates NMFS for responding to the requests for holding public hearings and extending the public comment period. The Council believes that the proposed critical habitat designations in U.S. waters published by NMFS are overly broad, and not based upon the best available scientific or economic information. Furthermore, the Council concludes that existing federal and local mechanisms also provide adequate protections for corals and their habitat, and designation of critical habitat is not likely to provide additional conservation benefits. By way of background, in 2018, the Supreme Court held that critical-habitat designations are limited to areas that are “also habitat for the species.” See Weyerhauser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 139 S. Ct. 361,368(2018) (emphasis in original). However, the Court left open the question of whether a currently-uninhabitable area would qualify as critical habitat. In 2019, NMFS promulgated revisions to the ESA implementing regulations. The new regulations included revisions to critical habitat designation.
    [Show full text]