1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...
1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ... 1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...
To support plan development, best available spatial data were reviewed and compiled by working groups under six major themes including habitat; fisheries; transportation, navigation and infrastructure; sediment; recreation and cultural services and renewable energy. The data layers used are catalogued in MORIS, the Massachusetts Ocean Resource Information System (available at www.mass.gov/czm/mapping/index.htm). The working groups compiled a baseline assessment to inventory and spatially describe the physical characteristics, natural communities, and human interactions within the planning area. Special, sensitive or unique areas (SSU) were delineated based on endangered species of cetacean and seabirds, areas of topographically complex seafloor, important areas for commercial and recreational fisheries, intertidal flats and seagrass beds. For large cetaceans, core habitat was classified for North Atlantic right whale, fin whale and humpback whale. Areas of core whale habitat were represented as concentrations in abundance based on sightings datasets compiled and analyzed by NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science report for the years 1970-2005 in the southern Gulf of Maine (NCCOS 2006, Pittman and Costa 2010). Bias from uneven allocation of survey effort (temporally or spatially) was corrected using a sighting-per-unit-effort (SPUE) algorithm. SPUE values for each 5 x 5 minute grid cell were then interpolated spatially and classified into five relative abundance classes, and the top two classes were extracted by the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan team to represent “core” habitat for each of these three species. The core areas where then used to determine potential conflicts (via spatial overlap) with other uses such as pipelines, cables, renewable energy, sand and gravel extraction, boating and shipping and recreational and commercial fisheries. 1.10.5 ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 36
One of the foundational concepts underlying the ecosystem approach to fisheries management is that different geographic areas have different biological production capacities and these are interlinked with the spatial heterogeneity of ecological patterns and processes including human activity. This requires management strategies that can incorporate the ecological dynamics in a spatially explicit framework. One of the first steps following the establishment of ecosystem-based management (EBM) goals is to characterize the biophysical habitat features of the management area (Cogan et al. 2009). In fisheries management, habitat mapping is increasingly utilized to inform management with regard to assessing the relative sensitivity of seabed features to the impacts of fishing (e.g., bottom trawling), identifying, mapping and modeling Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and species distributions. In the United States, the importance of classified maps in sustainable fisheries management was emphasized by the implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2006) which requested habitat mapping and classification as a primary priority in its research plan. In addition, the classification of complex spatio-temporal behavioral patterns in fishing activity are required to support a wide range of spatial management activities including impact assessment, fleet management, enforcement, spatial characterizations and monitoring that are crucial for implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management, MPA site selection and marine spatial planning. 1.10.5.1 Mapping Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 37
- Page 1 and 2: 1.10 Application of estuarine and c
- Page 3 and 4: SYNOPSIS Coastal and marine classif
- Page 5 and 6: government and non-governmental man
- Page 7 and 8: paucity of species and habitat data
- Page 9 and 10: and many sub-catastrophic disturban
- Page 11 and 12: conservation practitioners, industr
- Page 13 and 14: levels of the hierarchy are defined
- Page 15 and 16: distributions, both within and surr
- Page 17 and 18: In a hierarchical framework for the
- Page 19 and 20: 1.10.2.3 Australian Coastal Classif
- Page 21 and 22: Ecological theory predicts that the
- Page 23 and 24: outbreaks in the late 1970s (Green
- Page 25 and 26: intertidal zones, and shallow coast
- Page 27 and 28: 1.10.3.1 Identifying Priority Conse
- Page 29 and 30: y the Massachusetts Oceans Act (200
- Page 31 and 32: eight color coded zones to provide
- Page 33 and 34: appropriate place to investigate fe
- Page 35: 1.10.4.3 Massachusetts Ocean Plan T
- Page 39 and 40: ecosystems has shown that considera
- Page 41 and 42: In May 2004, Germany was the first
- Page 43 and 44: improve the design and interpretati
- Page 45 and 46: NOAA’s CoastWatch Change Analysis
- Page 47 and 48: ground resolution of 30 m. Each cla
- Page 49 and 50: also be used to assess the role of
- Page 51 and 52: States (Gundlach and Hayes 1978). T
- Page 53 and 54: information at the species level. I
- Page 55 and 56: 1.10.8.4 Classifying and Mapping Hu
- Page 57 and 58: map of the entire Australian shorel
- Page 59 and 60: within 11 regions, leading to an ov
- Page 61 and 62: enhancement of certain functions in
- Page 63 and 64: achieved by identifying barriers to
- Page 65 and 66: ecosystem service values extracted
- Page 67 and 68: 1.10.12 FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND PRIOR
- Page 69 and 70: 1.10.12.1 Linking Patterns and Proc
- Page 71 and 72: approach. New classifications will
- Page 73 and 74: Arundel, H. and Mount, R. 2007. Nat
- Page 75 and 76: Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in t
- Page 77 and 78: Duke. N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittman
- Page 79 and 80: Green, A.L., C.E. Birkeland, R.H. R
- Page 81 and 82: Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaise
- Page 83 and 84: Kostylev, V., Todd, B.J., Fader, G.
- Page 85 and 86: Maxwell, D.L., Stelzenmüller, V.,
To support plan development, best available spatial data were reviewed <strong>and</strong> compiled by<br />
work<strong>in</strong>g groups under six major themes <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g habitat; fisheries; transportation, navigation<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>frastructure; sediment; recreation <strong>and</strong> cultural services <strong>and</strong> renewable energy. The data<br />
layers used are catalogued <strong>in</strong> MORIS, the Massachusetts Ocean Resource Information System<br />
(available at www.mass.gov/czm/mapp<strong>in</strong>g/<strong>in</strong>dex.htm). The work<strong>in</strong>g groups compiled a basel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
assessment to <strong>in</strong>ventory <strong>and</strong> spatially describe the physical characteristics, natural communities,<br />
<strong>and</strong> human <strong>in</strong>teractions with<strong>in</strong> the plann<strong>in</strong>g area. Special, sensitive or unique areas (SSU) were<br />
del<strong>in</strong>eated based on endangered species <strong>of</strong> cetacean <strong>and</strong> seabirds, areas <strong>of</strong> topographically<br />
complex seafloor, important areas for commercial <strong>and</strong> recreational fisheries, <strong>in</strong>tertidal flats <strong>and</strong><br />
seagrass beds. For large cetaceans, core habitat was classified for North Atlantic right whale, f<strong>in</strong><br />
whale <strong>and</strong> humpback whale. Areas <strong>of</strong> core whale habitat were represented as concentrations <strong>in</strong><br />
abundance based on sight<strong>in</strong>gs datasets compiled <strong>and</strong> analyzed by NOAA’s National Centers for<br />
Coastal Ocean Science report for the years 1970-2005 <strong>in</strong> the southern Gulf <strong>of</strong> Ma<strong>in</strong>e (NCCOS<br />
2006, Pittman <strong>and</strong> Costa 2010). Bias from uneven allocation <strong>of</strong> survey effort (temporally or<br />
spatially) was corrected us<strong>in</strong>g a sight<strong>in</strong>g-per-unit-effort (SPUE) algorithm. SPUE values for each<br />
5 x 5 m<strong>in</strong>ute grid cell were then <strong>in</strong>terpolated spatially <strong>and</strong> classified <strong>in</strong>to five relative abundance<br />
classes, <strong>and</strong> the top two classes were extracted by the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan<br />
team to represent “core” habitat for each <strong>of</strong> these three species. The core areas where then used<br />
to determ<strong>in</strong>e potential conflicts (via spatial overlap) with other uses such as pipel<strong>in</strong>es, cables,<br />
renewable energy, s<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> gravel extraction, boat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> shipp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> recreational <strong>and</strong><br />
commercial fisheries.<br />
<strong>1.10</strong>.5 ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT<br />
36