Rapid Response and Restoration for Coral Reef Injuries in Southeast Florida: Guidelines and Recommendations

From the time an injury to coral reef resources is reported, a well-coordinated and implemented plan is critical to the success of response and restoration efforts. There are three major plan components, each of which is equally important: (1) the Initial Response period immediately following notification of the incident; (2) the Response period, during which the Responsible Party (RP) is identified, the Trustees and RP carry out their respective responsibilities, a Primary Restoration plan is developed, authorizations and contractors to conduct restoration activities are sought and obtained, and primary restoration activities are conducted; and (3) the Post-Response period, which is largely a monitoring, compensatory restoration/mitigation, and penalty assessment phase that takes place after primary restoration activities are carried out. The guidelines and recommendations presented in this docuemnt were developed to examine reef injury response processes and to facilitate a rapid response to, and the successful restoration of, southeast Florida reefs. The document was developed as part of a Local Action Strategy (LAS) of the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) to develop guidelines and recommendations for a rapid response and restoration process for reef injuries in the SEFCRI region. In February 2006, a two day workshop was held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to compile information on existing emergency response processes, identify deficiencies and develop solutions for those processes, and compile information on existing technologies and procedures for triage and the restoration of reef injuries. The first day of the workshop focused on process and policy issues. The second day addressed response, injury and mitigation assessment, restoration and repair, and monitoring. Workshop panelists and attendees included respresentatives from local, state, and federal agencies with proprietary or regulatory authority or jurisdiction over sovereign submerged lands and reef resources located within Florida\u27s waters. Also in attendance were technical and academic experts in the fields of coral reef research, injury assessment, and restoration, as well as marine contractors, private and public attorneys, nongovernmental organizations, and other interested parties. These guidelines and recommendations incorporate information from the combined experience of the workshop attendees, workshop outcomes, published documents, and numerous state and federal regulations, policies, and procedures

Extraterritorial Application of State Fishery Management Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Have the Courts Missed the Boat

[No abstract

Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights at Sea and Systems: There's Something Fishy About This

36 p. A print copy of this title is available through the UO Libraries under the call number: LAW LIB. K 10 .O425In early 2007, Congress passed, and the President subsequently signed into law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.23 Included in the reauthorization were several amendments to the Act.24 Among those amendments is a requirement that the government improve the sharing of VMS data among relevant state and federal agencies.25 While the government’s use of VMS to protect marine resources has been generally applauded, the constitutionality of such 24-hour surveillance deserves further scrutiny. This Article examines the real-life situation unfolding within the Gulf of Mexico’s reef fish fishery in order to highlight the privacy issues arising from the government’s 24-hour surveillance of commercial vessels. Part I takes a historical look at the evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence as it relates to technological advances employed by governmental entities over the past century. Part II explores the constitutionality of the government’s 24-hour VMS surveillance by analyzing a not-so-hypothetical scenario in the Gulf of Mexico. Parts III and IV analyze the scenario presented in Part II and conclude that the government’s current VMS requirements may already infringe upon the constitutionally protected privacy rights of commercial fishers