Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library
Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library
724 Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca arid W.J. Kenwortliy. 1982. Restoration oficagiass meadows for enhancement of nearshore productivity. In: Ning Labbish Chao and William Klrby- Smilh (ed.), Pioceedings of the International Symposium on Utilization ofCoastal Eco systems: Planning, Pollution and Productivity. Nov. 21-27, 1982, Rio Grande, RS- Brasll. Vol.1. Tutin, T.G. 1938. The autecology otZostera marina in lelatlen to its wasting disease. New Phytol. 37:50-71.
Estuarine and CoastalManagement-Tootsof the Trade. Proceedingsof the TenthNationalConference of TheCoastalSociety. October12-15.1986. New Orleans.LA. Copyrightby TheCoastalSociety 1987. Preface EVOLVING RATIONALES FOR FEDERAL HABITAT PROGRAMS Thomas E. Bigforrj Habitat Conservation Branch National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanicand AtmosphericAdmsuslntion Gloucester. MA 01930-3097 This paper is the opinion of the author. It may not represent the views of other agencies or staff. Nonetheless, it does explain some of the pressures affecting habitat conservation programs during an era of decreasing federal budgets and growing coastal development pressures. Introduction Federal habitat programs In the Northeast, and perhaps elsewhere, are entering a new era In their efforts to restore and protect living marine resources and their habitat. These new challenges to existing programs threaten to change program emphasis, affect the breadth of coastal resource planning, and limit the tools of federal habitat managers. This trend is most obvious at the budget and management decision levels where pressures from development and oonruercial Industries and politics are most severe; fortunately, many staff biologists and planners still operate with the full agency mandates In mind, unperturbed by the neglect accorded to their work by decision-makers. Regardless the inefficiencies and frustrations of this situation will probably continue. Hopefully, habitat conservation programs and employee morale will endure. What Does This Mean to Resource Managers? The Implications of this growing shift are significant. In NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, habitat conservation has always been a broad concept related to coranercial, recreational, forage, and protected species. Specific mandates provided NMFS with an entree into habitats for existing anadromous and marine species and for historical habitats vital to species under restoration such as Atlantic salmon and striped bass. However, with the narrowed emphasis on habitats related to species with oonrnerical value and with political pressures to support major development 725
- Page 264 and 265: STATION NUMBER STATION NAME TABLE 1
- Page 266 and 267: The St. Petersburg tide gauge stati
- Page 268 and 269: STATION NUMBER STATION NAME TABLE 2
- Page 270 and 271: elative sea level rise is 0.33 cm/y
- Page 272 and 273: References Byrne, P., Borengasser,
- Page 274 and 275: Estuarineand Coastal Management- To
- Page 276 and 277: these times that the increase in vu
- Page 278 and 279: econstruction projects. Conclusion
- Page 280 and 281: RESOLVING CONFLICTS/ASSESSING RISKS
- Page 282 and 283: 686 lightering is estimated at $69
- Page 284 and 285: BEACH EVOLUTION AFTER CAUSEWAY CONS
- Page 286 and 287: 690 and overriding the facility. Ic
- Page 288 and 289: Estuarine andCoastal Management - T
- Page 290 and 291: Inextricably wound up with religion
- Page 292 and 293: ethics is that advocated by Leopold
- Page 294 and 295: laboratory animals, lower animals a
- Page 296 and 297: Estuarine andCoastal Management-Too
- Page 298 and 299: Estuarine and Coastal Management To
- Page 300 and 301: 708 these projects. Our criteria fo
- Page 302 and 303: 710 S. alternlflora established on
- Page 304 and 305: 712 Additional compensation by ropl
- Page 306 and 307: 714 to the question of placement (l
- Page 308 and 309: 716 criteria adequate to achieve th
- Page 310 and 311: 718 Nixon, S. W. 1980. Between coas
- Page 312 and 313: 720 of them because of this distanc
- Page 314: 722 Light penetration Is probably o
- Page 319 and 320: management emphasis Is now affectin
- Page 321 and 322: Estuarine andCoastal Management - T
- Page 323 and 324: 734 assemblages; Juvenile fish and
- Page 325 and 326: -J 736 The heavy material falls out
- Page 327 and 328: 738 Future Harsh Creation. We are n
- Page 329 and 330: 740 Estuarine and Coastal Managemen
- Page 331 and 332: Estuarine andCoastal Management -To
- Page 333 and 334: This site also satisfied several ot
- Page 335 and 336: successful implementation of such a
- Page 337 and 338: 750 I.C.R.R Fig. I
- Page 339 and 340: 752 More lumber companieslaunched o
- Page 341 and 342: 754 the track. When ties nasoed rep
- Page 343 and 344: 756 Schlleder spared no expense, no
- Page 345 and 346: 758 Stover, j. F. 1955. The Railroa
- Page 347 and 348: Estuarine and Coastal Management -
- Page 349 and 350: Estuarineand Coastal Management•
- Page 351 and 352: contain detailed Information about
- Page 353 and 354: production Is uncertain. Thus, the
- Page 355 and 356: Estuarine and Coastal Management To
- Page 357 and 358: MANAGING LIVING RESOURCES
- Page 359 and 360: 776 seagrasses and associated biota
- Page 361 and 362: 778 FLORIDA BIG BEND SEAGRASS HABIT
- Page 363 and 364: 780 Barle, S. A. 1972. Benthic alga
Estuarine and CoastalManagement-Tootsof <strong>the</strong><br />
Trade. Proceedingsof <strong>the</strong> Tenth<strong>National</strong>Conference<br />
of TheCoastalSociety. October12-15.19<strong>86</strong>. New<br />
Orleans.LA. Copyrightby TheCoastalSociety<br />
1987.<br />
Preface<br />
EVOLVING RATIONALES FOR FEDERAL HABITAT PROGRAMS<br />
Thomas E. Bigforrj<br />
Habitat Conservation Branch<br />
<strong>National</strong> Marine Fisheries Service<br />
<strong>National</strong> Oceanicand AtmosphericAdmsuslntion<br />
Gloucester. MA 01930-3097<br />
This paper is <strong>the</strong> opinion of <strong>the</strong> author. It may not represent <strong>the</strong><br />
views of o<strong>the</strong>r agencies or staff. None<strong>the</strong>less, it does explain<br />
some of <strong>the</strong> pressures affecting habitat conservation programs<br />
during an era of decreasing federal budgets and growing coastal<br />
development pressures.<br />
Introduction<br />
Federal habitat programs In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast, and perhaps elsewhere,<br />
are entering a new era In <strong>the</strong>ir efforts to restore and protect<br />
living marine resources and <strong>the</strong>ir habitat. These new challenges<br />
to existing programs threaten to change program emphasis, affect<br />
<strong>the</strong> breadth of coastal resource planning, and limit <strong>the</strong> tools of<br />
federal habitat managers. This trend is most obvious at <strong>the</strong><br />
budget and management decision levels where pressures from<br />
development and oonruercial Industries and politics are most<br />
severe; fortunately, many staff biologists and planners still<br />
operate with <strong>the</strong> full agency mandates In mind, unperturbed by <strong>the</strong><br />
neglect accorded to <strong>the</strong>ir work by decision-makers. Regardless <strong>the</strong><br />
inefficiencies and frustrations of this situation will probably<br />
continue. Hopefully, habitat conservation programs and employee<br />
morale will endure.<br />
What Does This Mean to Resource Managers?<br />
The Implications of this growing shift are significant. In NOAA's<br />
<strong>National</strong> Marine Fisheries Service, habitat conservation has always<br />
been a broad concept related to coranercial, recreational, forage,<br />
and protected species. Specific mandates provided NMFS with an<br />
entree into habitats for existing anadromous and marine species<br />
and for historical habitats vital to species under restoration<br />
such as Atlantic salmon and striped bass. However, with <strong>the</strong><br />
narrowed emphasis on habitats related to species with oonrnerical<br />
value and with political pressures to support major development<br />
725