Noaa Coral Reef Conservation Program Fishing Impacts Implementation Plan Fy2013 Fy2017

"The purpose of this plan is to refine the Coral Reef Conservation Program's (CRCP's ) approach to achieving its National Goals and Objectives (G&Os) related to fishing impacts and direct future CRCP investments towards reducing this threat in U.S. coral reef ecosystems over the next five years"--Purpose statement.

"Ecotrust received a one-year grant of $75,810 through NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program for a project through our Marine Consulting Initiative to develop, deploy, and fieldtest an integrated technical design solution for trip ticket forms. In the fall of 2013, Ecotrust’s Marine Consulting Initiative was launched as a separate but wholly-owned subsidiary entity, Point 97, driven by the same mission: to deliver technology solutions and engagement strategies for coastal and marine planning that better connect people with place, bridge differing perspectives, and implement management decisions in an inclusive and transparent way. Point 97 works towards this mission in regions around the world through consulting, contracted services, and high-tech product development. All existing grant-funded projects will be accomplished as planned, and Point 97 will continue to partner with Ecotrust and other collaborators in future grant-funded work. With the support of this one-year NOAA CRCP award, the project team accomplished a needs assessment for an electronic catch reporting system in the Caribbean, designed the initial product, implemented three major updates to the product, and received feedback from partners to consider through the stages of development and implementation. The number of participating fishers and their submitted reports demonstrated the success of the electronic reporting system; we collected over 600 electronic catch reports from 27 fishers in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and Puerto Rico (PR) over a period of nine months. The final Digital Deck electronic catch report system included a catch report application (mobile and desktop) and dashboards for both the fishers (mobile and desktop dashboards) and the agency fisheries managers (desktop dashboards). Throughout the project we coordinated with fishers, agency fisheries managers, and regional data managers via in-person meetings and phone conferences. Initial onsite visits enabled the project team to recruit and train cooperating fishers in collaboration with agency partners. The project team continued training and support for fishers through later site visits and regular remote communication, and worked with both fishers and agency partners to ensure that the final product fit technology preferences and data requirements. This final report details the progress made during the grant period towards approved objectives and the project results. Final grant financials have been submitted separately through the NOAA Grants Online portal, according to reporting guidelines"--Executive Summary.

"The EA is intended to accomplish NEPA compliance by: (1) summarizing the current environmental situation, (2) describing the purpose and need for restoration, (3) identifying alternative actions, (4) assessing the potential environmental impacts of the preferred alternative, and (5) summarizing the opportunities for public participation in the decision process. Three alternatives were considered during the preparation of this EA: The No Action Alternative (not preferred), the Preferred Alternative - Implement Restoration for All Habitats, and the Third, Alternative (not preferred) - Implement Land Acquisition and Preservation Program. The two alternatives that were not selected for implementation under this program are described in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Briefly, the No Action Alternative would discontinue the Community-Based Restoration Program and eliminate any benefits the program provides to living marine resources through habitat restoration, relying instead on natural recovery and other programs. The Third Alternative would fund land acquisition and preservation projects for the protection of particular habitats and species rather than focusing on the active restoration of a variety of habitat types potentially benefiting multiple species. The Preferred Alternative - Implement Restoration for All Habitats - will implement habitat restoration activities in all coastal habitats to benefit living marine resources, including anadromous fish species. Implementation of restoration activities under the preferred alternative may have a very localized and temporary adverse impact over the short-term, but will provide beneficial habitat in the long-term"--Page 2.

"The EA is intended to accomplish NEPA compliance by: (1) summarizing the current environmental situation, (2) describing the purpose and need for restoration, (3) identifying alternative actions, (4) assessing the potential environmental impacts of the preferred alternative, and (5) summarizing the opportunities for public participation in the decision process. Three alternatives were considered during the preparation of this EA: The No Action Alternative (not preferred), the Preferred Alternative - Implement Restoration for All Habitats, and the Third, Alternative (not preferred) - Implement Land Acquisition and Preservation Program. The two alternatives that were not selected for implementation under this program are described in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Briefly, the No Action Alternative would discontinue the Community-Based Restoration Program and eliminate any benefits the program provides to living marine resources through habitat restoration, relying instead on natural recovery and other programs. The Third Alternative would fund land acquisition and preservation projects for the protection of particular habitats and species rather than focusing on the active restoration of a variety of habitat types potentially benefiting multiple species. The Preferred Alternative - Implement Restoration for All Habitats - will implement habitat restoration activities in all coastal habitats to benefit living marine resources, including anadromous fish species. Implementation of restoration activities under the preferred alternative may have a very localized and temporary adverse impact over the short-term, but will provide beneficial habitat in the long-term"--Page 2.

The federal government wastes your tax dollars worse than a drunken sailor on shore leave. The 1984 Grace Commission uncovered that the Department of Defense spent $640 for a toilet seat and $436 for a hammer. Twenty years later things weren't much better. In 2004, Congress spent a record-breaking $22.9 billion dollars of your money on 10,656 of their pork-barrel projects. The war on terror has a lot to do with the record $413 billion in deficit spending, but it's also the result of pork over the last 18 years the likes of: - $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa - $102 million to study screwworms which were long ago eradicated from American soil - $273,000 to combat goth culture in Missouri - $2.2 million to renovate the North Pole (Lucky for Santa!) - $50,000 for a tattoo removal program in California - $1 million for ornamental fish research Funny in some instances and jaw-droppingly stupid and wasteful in others, The Pig Book proves one thing about Capitol Hill: pork is king!