1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.,
Page 87 and 88:
Spatial and temporal patterns in fi
Page 89 and 90:
Sharples, C. 2006. Indicative Mappi
Page 91 and 92:
Wells, S., Ravilous, C., Corcoran,
Page 93 and 94:
FIGURE LEGENDS Figure 1. A) Classes
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 10. Ecological evaluation in
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 21. Combining 'intolerance'
Page 99 and 100:
selected planning units in gray ins
Page 101 and 102:
Box 2. Classifications as thematic
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 1. 1
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 3. 3
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 5. 5
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 7. 7
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 9. 9
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 11. 11
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 13. 13
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 15. Fishing effort (hrs/day)
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 17. 17
Page 121 and 122:
Figure 19. 100% Conversion. 80% 60%
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 21. 21
Page 125 and 126:
Figure 23. 23
Page 127 and 128:
Figure 25. 25
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 27. 27
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 29. 29
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 31. 31
Page 135:
Figure 33. 33
show all

1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?