Comparison of habitat-based indices of abundance with fishery-independent biomass estimates from bottom trawl surveys

Rockfish species are notoriously difficult to sample with multispecies bottom trawl survey methods. Typically, biomass estimates have high coefficients of variation and can fluctuate outside the bounds of biological reality from year to year. This variation may be due in part to their patchy distribution related to very specific habitat preferences. We successfully modeled the distribution of five commercially important and abundant rockf ish species. A two-stage modeling method (modeling both presence-absence and abundance) and a collection of important habitat variables were used to predict bottom trawl survey catch per unit of effort. The resulting models explained between 22% and 66% of the variation in rockfish distribution. The models were largely driven by depth, local slope, bottom temperature, abundance of coral and sponge, and measures of water column productivity (i.e., phytoplankton and zooplankton). A year-effect in the models was back-transformed and used as an index of the time series of abundance. The abundance index trajectories of three of five species were similar to the existing estimates of their biomass. In the majority of cases the habitat-based indices exhibited less interannual variability and similar precision when compared with stratified survey-based biomass estimates. These indices may provide for stock assessment models a more stable alternative to current biomass estimates produced by the multispecies bottom trawl survey in the Gulf of Alaska.

An idealized rural coastal zone management integrating land and water use

Various countries have formulated special integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) strategies which seek to both manage development and conserve natural resources and integrate and coordinate the relevant people sectors and their functions and roles within the bounds of this rich realm. Concerns that may be addressed by ICZM include: 1) Natural resources degradation; 2) Pollution; 3) Land use conflicts; and, 4) Destruction of life and property by natural hazards. Some prevalent sources of environmental impacts (livelihoods) are listed, together with some recommendations to the concerns which they may raise in relation to coastal zone management: agriculture; aquaculture; fisheries; forestry; human settlements; tourism; and, transport industry.