Classification of Coastal Communities Reporting Commercial Fish Landings in the U.S. Northeast Region: Developing and Testing a Methodology

The National Marine Fisheries Service is required by law to conduct social impact assessments of communities impacted by fishery management plans. To facilitate this process, we developed a technique for grouping communities based on common sociocultural attributes. Multivariate data reduction techniques (e.g. principal component analyses, cluster analyses) were used to classify Northeast U.S. fishing communities based on census and fisheries data. The comparisons indicate that the clusters represent real groupings that can be verified with the profiles. We then selected communities representative of different values on these multivariate dimensions for in-depth analysis. The derived clusters are then compared based on more detailed data from fishing community profiles. Ground-truthing (e.g. visiting the communities and collecting primary information) a sample of communities from three clusters (two overlapping geographically) indicates that the more remote techniques are sufficient for typing the communities for further in-depth analyses. The in-depth analyses provide additional important information which we contend is representative of all communities within the cluster.

Improvements to Data Collection in Commercial Fisheries Using Electronic Reporting Methods: Cost/Efficiency and Implications for Use in Ecosystem Management.

Data have been collected on fisheries catch and effort trends since the latter half of the 1800s. With current trends in declining stocks and stricter management regimes, data need to be collected and analyzed over shorter periods and at finer spatial resolution than in the past. New methods of electronic reporting may reduce the lag time in data collection and provide more accurate spatial resolution. In this study I evaluated the differences between fish dealer and vessel reporting systems for federal fisheries in the US New England and Mid-Atlantic areas. Using data on landing date, report date, gear used, port landed, number of hauls, number of fish sampled and species quotas from available catch and effort records I compared dealer and vessel electronically collected data against paper collected dealer and vessel data to determine if electronically collected data are timelier and more accurate. To determine if vessel or dealer electronic reporting is more useful for management, I determined differences in timeliness and accuracy between vessel and dealer electronic reports. I also compared the cost and efficiency of these new methods with less technology intensive reporting methods using available cost data and surveys of seafood dealers for cost information. Using this information I identified potentially unnecessary duplication of effort and identified applications in ecosystem-based fisheries management. This information can be used to guide the decisions of fisheries managers in the United States and other countries that are attempting to identify appropriate fisheries reporting methods for the management regimes under consideration. (PDF contains 370 pages)

Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume One: A framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457)

Executive Summary: The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA), Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, was created to promote the restoration of habitats along the coast of the United States (including the US protectorates and the Great Lakes). The NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science was charged with the development of a guidance manual for monitoring plans under this Act. This guidance manual, titled Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, is written in two volumes. It provides technical assistance, outlines necessary steps, and provides useful tools for the development and implementation of sound scientific monitoring of coastal restoration efforts. In addition, this manual offers a means to detect early warnings that the restoration is on track or not, to gauge how well a restoration site is functioning, to coordinate projects and efforts for consistent and successful restoration, and to evaluate the ecological health of specific coastal habitats both before and after project completion (Galatowitsch et al. 1998). The following habitats have been selected for discussion in this manual: water column, rock bottom, coral reefs, oyster reefs, soft bottom, kelp and other macroalgae, rocky shoreline, soft shoreline, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, mangrove swamps, deepwater swamps, and riverine forests. The classification of habitats used in this document is generally based on that of Cowardin et al. (1979) in their Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, as called for in the ERA Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy. This manual is not intended to be a restoration monitoring “cookbook” that provides templates of monitoring plans for specific habitats. The interdependence of a large number of site-specific factors causes habitat types to vary in physical and biological structure within and between regions and geographic locations (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Monitoring approaches used should be tailored to these differences. However, even with the diversity of habitats that may need to be restored and the extreme geographic range across which these habitats occur, there are consistent principles and approaches that form a common basis for effective monitoring. Volume One, titled A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, begins with definitions and background information. Topics such as restoration, restoration monitoring, estuaries, and the role of socioeconomics in restoration are discussed. In addition, the habitats selected for discussion in this manual are briefly described. (PDF contains 116 pages)

Enforcement of associated protected measures in particularly sensitive sea areas

The distinguished character of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) is that every application for PSSAs must be accompanied by Associated Protected Measures (APMs) which can make PSSAs efficient in practice.1 That is why APMs are regarded as the core feature of every PSSA.2 APM is “an international rule or standard that falls within the purview of an international maritime organization (IMO) and regulates international maritime activities for the protection of the area at risk.” So far, APMs have been approved by IMO as following: -Compulsory or recommended pilotage -Mandatory ship reporting -An area to be avoided -Traffic separation schemes -Discharge prohibition or regulations -Mandatory no anchoring areas -Deep water routes -Emission control areas (PDF contains 5 pages)

Improving reporting of uncertainties in sea level rise assessments

Sea level rise (SLR) assessments are commonly used to identify the extent that coastal populations are at risk to flooding. However, the data and assumptions used to develop these assessments contain numerous sources and types of uncertainty, which limit confidence in the accuracy of modeled results. This study illustrates how the intersection of uncertainty in digital elevation models (DEMs) and SLR lead to a wide range of modeled outcomes. SLR assessments are then reviewed to identify the extent that uncertainty is documented in peer-reviewed articles. The paper concludes by discussing priorities needed to further understand SLR impacts. (PDF contains 4 pages)