28 resultados para United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Resumo:
The biography of Charles Bradford Hudson that follows this preface had its seeds about 1965 when I (VGS) was casually examining the extensive files of original illustrations of fishes stored in the Division of Fishes, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. I happened upon the unpublished illustration of a rainbow trout by Hudson and was greatly impressed with its quality. The thought occurred to me then that the artist must have gone on to do more than just illustrate fishes. During the next 20 years I occasionally pawed through those files, which contained the work of numerous artists, who had worked from 1838 to the present. In 1985, I happened to discuss the files with my supervisor, who urged me to produce a museum exhibit of original fish illustrations. This I did, selecting 200 of the illustrations representing 21 artists, including, of course, Hudson. As part of the text for the exhibit, Drawn from the Sea, Art in the Service of Ichthyology, I prepared short biographies of each of the artists. The exhibit, with an available poster, was shown in the Museum for six months, and a reduced version was exhibited in U.S. and Canadian museums during the next 3 years.
Resumo:
The term “fishery resources” is used in this book with a broad application. It includes the populations of the fishes and other organisms useful to men, the environment that makes life possible for them, the industry that exploits and utilizes them, and our knowledge about them by which we can conserve their productivity. This book aims to survey the present status of all these aspects of those fishery resources that are used or are available for use by United States anglers and commercial fishermen. It is planned primarily for the Congress, at its request, with the idea of giving to busy people, in condensed fashion, a perspective on its subject. (pdf contains 142 pages)
Resumo:
While the homes threatened by erosion and the developer illegally filling in marshlands are the projects that make the headlines, for many state regulatory programs, it’s the residential docks and piers that take up the most time. When is a dock too long? What about crossing extended property lines? And at what point does a creek have too many docks? There are no easy answers to any of the dock and pier related questions. Each state has to craft the laws and policies that are best for its natural resources and its political and legal environment. At the same time, mistakes in judgment can be costly for the organization, the homeowner, and the natural resources. At the request of the Georgia Coastal Management Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center compiled an inventory of dock information for four statesGeorgia, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Federal laws, state laws and regulations, permitting policies, and contact information are included in a tabular format that is easy to use. (PDF contaions 18 pages)
Resumo:
Executive Summary: For over three decades, scientists have been documenting the decline of coral reef ecosystems, amid increasing recognition of their value in supporting high biological diversity and their many benefits to human society. Coral reef ecosystems are recognized for their benefits on many levels, such as supporting economies by nurturing fisheries and providing for recreational and tourism opportunities, providing substances useful for medical purposes, performing essential ecosystem services that protect against coastal erosion, and provid-ing a diversity of other, more intangible contributions to many cultures. In the past decade, the increased awareness regarding coral reefs has prompted action by governmental and non-governmental organizations, including increased funding from the U.S. Congress for conservation of these important ecosystems and creation of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) to coordinate activities and implement conservation measures [Presidential Executive Order 13089]. Numerous partnerships forged among Federal agencies and state, local, non-governmental, academic and private partners support activities that range from basic science to systematic monitoring of ecosystem com-ponents and are conducted by government agencies, non-governmental organizations, universities, and the private sector. This report shares the results of many of these efforts in the framework of a broad assessment of the condition of coral reef ecosystems across 14 U.S. jurisdictions and Pacific Freely Associated States. This report relies heavily on quantitative, spatially-explicit data that has been collected in the recent past and comparisons with historical data, where possible. The success of this effort can be attributed to the dedication of over 160 report contributors who comprised the expert writing teams for each jurisdiction. The content of the report chapters are the result of their considerable collaborative efforts. The writing teams, which were organized by jurisdiction and comprised of experts from numerous research and management institutions, were provided a basic chapter outline and a length limit, but the content of each chapter was left entirely to their discretion. Each jurisdictional chapter in the report is structured to: 1) describe how each of the primary threats identified in the National Coral Reef Action Strategy (NCRAS) has manifested in the jurisdiction; 2) introduce ongoing monitoring and assessment activities relative to three major categories of inquiry – water quality, benthic habitats, and associated biological communities – and provide summary results in a data-rich format; and 3) highlight recent management activities that promote conservation of coral reef ecosystems.
Resumo:
Over a decade ago, in August 1977, the First Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop was convened in Athens, Georgia. That workshop, organized by j.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, not only considered biology and pathology of stranded marine mammals, but it also served as a springboard for the formation of regional marine mammal stranding networks in the United States. The ramifications have been extremely important to the field of marine mammalogy since, for some species, examination or rehabilitation of stranded specimens serves as virtually the only source of information on distribution, anatomy, physiology, reproduction, and pathology. The First Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop led to increased awareness of the marine mammals themselves, as well as the logistic and legal factors associated with effective handling of the animals. A number of individuals indicated that they felt that a Second Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop held prior to the Seventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals (Miami, Florida; December 1987) would be both timely and productive. Accordingly, we organized the workshop and scheduled it to occur on 3-5 December. Our goals for the workshop were several, including 1) providing descriptions of some research, especially new techniques, regarding stranded marine mammals; 2) providing a forum where scientists could interact and possibly initiate cooperative research activities; 3) presenting information regarding procedures used effectively to handle stranded animals; 4) assessing ways to standardize data and specimen collection, archiving, and retrieval; and 5) providing a forum for assessing accomplishments and status of regional stranding networks to date, as well as for making recommendations regarding future activities of the networks. Nearly 100 individuals representing Federal and State governments, academic institutions, the oceanarium industry, consulting groups, conservation organizations, and the private sector attended the workshop (see Workshop Participants, this volume). (PDF file contains 166 pages.)
Resumo:
Assessing the vulnerability of stocks to fishing practices in U.S. federal waters was recently highlighted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as an important factor to consider when 1) identifying stocks that should be managed and protected under a fishery management plan; 2) grouping data-poor stocks into relevant management complexes; and 3) developing precautionary harvest control rules. To assist the regional fishery management councils in determining vulnerability, NMFS elected to use a modified version of a productivity and susceptibility analysis (PSA) because it can be based on qualitative data, has a history of use in other fisheries, and is recommended by several organizations as a reasonable approach for evaluating risk. A number of productivity and susceptibility attributes for a stock are used in a PSA and from these attributes, index scores and measures of uncertainty are computed and graphically displayed. To demonstrate the utility of the resulting vulnerability evaluation, we evaluated six U.S. fisheries targeting 162 stocks that exhibited varying degrees of productivity and susceptibility, and for which data quality varied. Overall, the PSA was capable of differentiating the vulnerability of stocks along the gradient of susceptibility and productivity indices, although fixed thresholds separating low-, moderate-, and highly vulnerable species were not observed. The PSA can be used as a flexible tool that can incorporate regional-specific information on fishery and management activity.
Resumo:
This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.
Resumo:
On an early fall day in September 1962 I sat quietly, thoughtfully, at my large desk in a newly renovated corner office in the old Crane wing of the Lillie Building, Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Looking out through high, ancient windows, I could see the busy main street of Woods Hole in the foreground, Martha's Vineyard beyond, behind me the MBL Stone Candle House, across the street the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and to the far right, the Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF)(Fig. 1). Down the inner hall from my office stretched renovated quarters for the fledgling, ongoing, year-round MBL Systematics-Ecology Program (SEP), which I had been invited to direct.
Resumo:
Seagrass ecosystems are protected under the federal "no-net-loss" policy for wetlands and form one of the most productive plant communities on the planet, performing important ecological functions. Seagrass beds have been recognized as a valuable resource critical to the health and function of coastal waters. Greater awareness and public education, however, is essential for conservation of this resource. Tremendous losses of this habitat have occurred as a result of development within the coastal zone. Disturbances usually kill seagrasses rapidly, and recovery is often comparatively slow. Mitigation to compensate for destruction of existing habitat usually follows when the agent of loss and responsible party are known. Compensation assumes that ecosystems can be made to order and, in essence, trades existing functional habitat for the promise of replacement habitat. While ~lant ingse agrass is not technically complex, there is no easy way to meet the goal of maintaining or increasing seagrass acreage. Rather, the entire process of planning, planting and monitoring requires attention to detail and does not lend itself to oversimplification.
Resumo:
In the past decade, increased awareness regarding the declining condition of U.S. coral reefs has prompted various actions by governmental and non-governmental organizations. Presidential Executive Order 13089 created the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) in 1998 to coordinate federal and state/territorial activities (Clinton, 1998), and the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 provided Congressional funding for activities to conserve these important ecosystems, including mapping, monitoring and assessment projects carried out through the support of NOAA’s CRCP. Numerous collaborations forged among federal agencies and state, local, non-governmental, academic and private partners now support a variety of monitoring activities. This report shares the results of many of these monitoring activities, relying heavily on quantitative, spatially-explicit data that has been collected in the recent past and comparisons with historical data where possible. The success of this effort can be attributed to the dedication of over 270 report contributors who comprised the expert writing teams in the jurisdictions and contributed to the National Level Activities and National Summary chapters. The scope and content of this report are the result of their dedication to this considerable collaborative effort. Ultimately, the goal of this report is to answer the difficult but vital question: what is the condition of U.S. coral reef ecosystems? The report attempts to base a response on the best available science emerging from coral reef ecosystem monitoring programs in 15 jurisdictions across the country. However, few monitoring programs have been in place for longer than a decade, and many have been initiated only within the past two to five years. A few jurisdictions are just beginning to implement monitoring programs and face challenges stemming from a lack of basic habitat maps and other ecosystem data in addition to adequate training, capacity building, and technical support. There is also a general paucity of historical data describing the condition of ecosystem resources before major human impacts occurred, which limits any attempt to present the current conditions within an historical context and contributes to the phenomenon of shifting baselines (Jackson, 1997; Jackson et al., 2001; Pandolfi et al., 2005).