## APPENDIX I

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, ALASKA REGION AND NOAA RESTORATION CENTER,
COMMUNITY-BASED RESTORATION PROGRAM

Number range CHAPTER**Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Programmatic
Consultation between the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska
Region and NOAA Restoration Center, Community-Based Restoration
Program**

**[Purpose]{.underline}**

Under Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), Federal agencies are required to
consult with the Secretary of Commerce on any action that may adversely
affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Consultation can be addressed
through programmatic EFH conservation recommendations to broadly
consider as many adverse effects as possible.

This programmatic consultation applies to restoration activities
undertaken in Alaska through the NOAA Restoration Center's (RC)
Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP) to restore habitat for living
marine resources. The Alaska region includes areas managed by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council.

**[Program Description]{.underline}**

The NOAA Community-Based Restoration Program began in 1996 to inspire
local efforts to conduct meaningful, on-the-ground restoration of
marine, estuarine and riparian habitat. Since that time, NOAA has
secured funding for 179 small-scale habitat restoration projects around
the U.S. coastline. Habitat restoration is defined here as activities
that directly result in the reestablishment or re-creation of stable,
productive marine, estuarine, lagoon, or coastal river ecological
systems. The Program is a systematic effort to catalyze partnerships at
the national and local level to contribute funding, technical
assistance, land, volunteer support or other in-kind services to help
citizens carry out technically sound restoration projects that promote
stewardship and a conservation ethic for living marine resources.

The program links seed money and technical expertise to citizen-driven
restoration projects, and emphasizes collaborative strategies built
around improving NOAA trust resources and the quality of the communities
they sustain. Human activities and development have caused unprecedented
destruction of coastal and wetland habitat. In a world of reliance on
natural resources for a sound economy, and stress over natural resource
management issues, stakeholders are coming together to assess and
evaluate natural resource priorities, promote awareness and education,
develop common goals and facilitate local habitat enhancement projects.
Community-based habitat restoration helps repair habitats required by
fish, endangered species and marine mammals. Restoration may include,
but is not limited to: improvement of coastal wetland tidal exchange or
reestablishment of historic hydrology; dam or berm removal; fish
passageway improvements; establishment or repair of riparian buffer
zones and improvement of freshwater habitats that support anadromous
fishes; planting of native coastal wetland and submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV); and improvements to feeding, shade or refuge, spawning
and rearing areas that are essential to managed species.

All restoration activities shall comply with Federal statutory and
regulatory procedures, as well as state requirements, prior to
implementation. Records of Federal and state permits/consultations are
maintained either with RC partners or in-house if the RC issues funds
for projects.

In Alaska, the RC CRP is evaluated through the National Environmental
Policy Act components consisting of a Draft and Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The
purpose of the EA document is to address NEPA compliance of Federal
actions at the program level, as opposed to the specific project level.
The EA and FONSI identify and discuss the potential impacts of proposed
actions on coastal and riverine environments.

CRP projects involve the restoration of coastal habitats that benefit
living marine resources. These restoration activities are undertaken in
riparian, marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation, shoreline, and kelp
habitats in the Alaska region. Restoration activities implemented under
the CRP have very localized and temporary adverse impacts over the
short-term, but will provide beneficial habitat to living marine
resources in the long-term.

During project implementation involving revegetation activities,
volunteers may cause a minor disturbance of the surrounding habitat by
compacting soil due to foot traffic or disturbing existing vegetation.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) restoration activities may also cause
short-term and long-term beneficial impacts to SAV, depending on the
method used to transplant SAV plants. Some methods require digging or
clearing of the bottom substrate which may result in temporary turbidity
plumes as well as disturbance to any organisms in the substrate.

Activities involving invasive plant removal may also result in minor
disturbances depending on methods used. Herbicides used in restoration
projects may leach into surrounding soils during rainy periods and could
also damage local, non-invasive plants during windy conditions. For
projects in which volunteers are in direct contact with the aquatic
environment, the greatest source of short-term impacts is the potential
for doing additional damage to the project site. These impacts may
include accidental contact with damaged seagrass beds by divers or
equipment, disruption of bottom sediment from diving fins causing
increased turbidity, and impacts resulting from the transplanting of
seagrasses to restoration sites.

**[The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act]{.underline}**

Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
[et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.), requires that Fishery Management
Councils include provisions in their fishery management plans that
identify and describe EFH, including adverse impacts and conservation
and enhancement measures. These provisions are addressed in the separate
FMPs for species managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council.

**Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in
the Northern Pacific**

The Northern Pacific Council has jurisdiction over the 900,000 square
mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) seaward of Alaska. The individual
FMPs addressing EFH for managed species in these areas represent the
North Pacific Council's response to those requirements stated in Section
303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 [et]{.underline}
[seq]{.underline}.). The FMPs are:

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Groundfish Fishery** of the Bering
    Sea and Aleutian Islands

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Groundfish Fishery** of the Gulf
    of Alaska

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **King and Tanner Crab Fisheries**
    in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Scallop Fisheries** off Alaska

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Salmon Fisheries** in the EEZ off
    the Coast of Alaska

    EFH is identified and described based on areas where various life
    stages of 65 managed species commonly occur. Some groundfish species
    occur in both the FMPs for the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering
    Straight/Aleutian Islands. A total of 51 groundfish species are
    managed in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Straight, and Aleutian Islands
    (Walleye pollock, *Theragra calcogramma*; Pacific cod, *Gadus
    macrocephalus;* Yellowfin sole, *Limanda aspera;* Greenland turbot,
    *Reinhardtius hippoglossoides;* Arrowtooth flounder, *Atheresthes
    stomias*; Rock sole, *Lepidopsetta bilineatus;* Alaska plaice,
    *Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus*; rex sole, *Errex zachirus*; Dover
    sole, *Microstomus pacificus*; starry flounder, *Platichthys
    stellatus*, longhead dab, *Pleuronectes proboscidea*; butter sole,
    *Pleuronectes isolepis/Isopsetta isolepis*; Flathead sole,
    *Hippoglossoides elassodon;* Sablefish/Black Cod, *Anoplopoma
    fimbria;* Pacific ocean perch, *Sebastes alutus;* Shortraker
    Rockfish, *Sebastes borealis*; Rougheye Rockfish, *Sebastes
    aleutianus*; Northern Rockfish, *Sebastes polyspinus;* Thornyheads,
    *Sebastolobus sp.;* Dusky Rockfish, *Sebastes ciliatus;* Atka
    mackerel, *Pleurogrammus monopterygius*; Yellow Irish lord,
    *Hemilepidotus jordani;* Red Irish lord, *Hemilepidotus
    hemilepidotus*; Butterfly sculpin, *Hemilepidotus papilio*; Bigmouth
    sculpin, *Hemitripterus bolini*; Great sculpin, *Myoxocephalus
    polyacanthocephalus*; Plain sculpin, *Myoxocephalus jaok*; Salmon
    shark, *Lamna ditropis*; Sleeper shark, *Somniosus pacificus*; Spiny
    dogfish, *Squalus acanthias;* Alaska skate, *Bathyraja parmifera*;
    Aleutian skate, *Bathyraja aleutica*; Bering skate, *Bathyraja
    interrupta*; Deep sea sole, *Embassicthys bathbius*; English sole,
    *Parophrys vetulus*; Alaska plaice, *Pleuronectes vetulus*; Sand
    sole, *Psettichthys melanostictus*; Rex sole, *Glyptocephalus
    zachirus;* Yelloweye rockfish, *Sebastes ruberrimus;* Quillback
    rockfish, *Sebastes maliger;* Rosethorn rockfish, *Sebastes
    helvomaculatus;* Tiger rockfish*, Sebastes nigrocinctus;* Canary
    rockfish, *Sebastes pinniger;* China rockfish, *Sebastes nebulosus;*
    Copper rockfish, *Sebastes caurinus;* Red/magistrate armhook squid,
    *Berryteuthis magister*; Boreal clubhook squid, *Onychoteuthis
    banksii borealjaponicus;* Giant/robust clubhook squid, *Moroteuthis
    robusta*; Eastern Pacific bobtail squid, *Rossia pacifica*; Octopus,
    *Octopus gilbertianus/O. dofleini*; Pelagic octopus, *Vampyroteuthis
    infernalis)*. The three other FMPs include eight species of king and
    tanner crabs (Red king crab, *Paralithodes camtschaticus;* Blue king
    crab, *Paralithodes platypus;* Golden king crab, *Lithodes
    aequispina;* Scarlet king crab, *Lithodes couesi;* Tanner crab,
    *Chionoecetes bairdi;* Snow crab, *Chionoecetes opilio;* Grooved
    Tanner crab, *Chionoecetes tanneri;* Triangle Tanner crab,
    *Chionoecetes angulatus)*, Weathervane Scallops, *Patinopectin
    caurinus*; and five species of salmon (Pink salmon*, Oncorhynchus
    gorbuscha*; Chum salmon, *Oncorhynchus keta;* Sockeye (Red) Salmon,
    *Oncorhynchus nerka*; Chinook (King) Salmon, *Oncorhynchus
    tshawytscha*; Coho (Silver) Salmon*, Oncorhynchus kisutch)*

    **Management of Forage Fish**

    Forage fish are abundant fishes that are preyed upon by marine
    mammals, seabirds and commercially important groundfish species
    (NAFMC, 1999). Amendment 36 to the BSAI groundfish FMP and Amendment
    39 to the GOA groundfish FMP define a forage fish species category
    in both FMPs and implement associated management measures. Because
    Amendments 36/39 established forage fish as a separate category in
    the groundfish FMPs, EFH must be defined for these species. The
    forage fish species category include all species of the following
    families: *Osmeridae* (eulachon, capelin and other smelts),
    *Myctophidae* (lanternfishes), *Bathylagidae* (deep-sea smelts),
    *Ammodytidae* (Pacific sand lance), *Trichodontidae* (Pacific sand
    fish), *Pholidae* (gunnels), *Stichaeidae* (pricklebacks,
    warbonnets, eelblennys, cockscombs and shannys), *Gonostomatidae*
    (bristlemouths, lightfishes, and anglemouths), and the Order
    *Euphausiacea* (krill). Pacific Herring (*Clupea pallasi*) is also
    an important forage fish but it is managed by the state of Alaska.

    The following section addresses EFH for managed species that may be
    encountered during community-based restoration projects in the North
    Pacific. Table 1 lists the FMPs and some of the species that have
    EFH designations and are likely to be encountered in a CRP project.

    Table 1. Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), species managed under each
    FMP, and the reasons for *inclusion* under the programmatic
    Environmental Assessment (EA) in the North Pacific.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **NORTH PACIFIC**                               

  Fishery Management Plan Species Managed Under   Reason for Inclusion
                          FMP                     

  North Pacific FMP for   15 species/life stages  Some species found near
  Groundfish of the       including: walleye      beaches, bays,
  Bering Sea and Aleutian pollock, Pacific cod,   estuaries, SAV beds or
  Islands                 yellowfin sole,         rivers.
                          arrowtooth flounder,    
                          rock sole,              
                          sablefish/black cod,    
                          Atka mackerel, capelin, 
                          sculpins and 4 families 
                          of forage fish: smelts  
                          (capelin, eulachon,     
                          rainbow smelt), Pacific 
                          sand lance, Pacific     
                          sandfish, Pholidae, and 
                          Stichaeidae.            

  North Pacific FMP for   24 species/life stages  Some species found near
  Groundfish of the Gulf  including: Walleye      beaches, bays, SAV beds
  of Alaska               pollock, Pacific cod,   or rivers. Atka
                          yellowfin sole,         mackerel and 3 rockfish
                          arrowtooth flounder,    species found in kelp,
                          rock sole, butter sole, SAV, and shallow
                          sand sole, English      coastal waters.
                          sole, Alaska plaice,    
                          starry flounder,        
                          sablefish (black cod),  
                          Atka mackerel, capelin, 
                          eulachon, yellow Irish  
                          lord, red Irish lord,   
                          butterfly sculpin,      
                          yelloweye rockfish,     
                          quillback rockfish,     
                          china rockfish, copper  
                          rockfish, dusky         
                          rockfish, and 4         
                          families of forage      
                          fish: *Osmeridae*       
                          (capelin, eulachon, and 
                          other smelts),          
                          *Trichodontidae*        
                          (Pacific sandfish),     
                          *Ammodytidae* (Pacific  
                          sand lance), *Pholidae  
                          (gunnels)*, and         
                          Stichaeidae             
                          pricklebacks,           
                          warbonnets, eelblennys, 
                          cockscombs and          
                          shannys).               

  North Pacific FMP for   4 species/life stages   All found in bays. Red
  the King and Tanner     including: red king     king and tanner crab
  Crab Fisheries in the   crab, blue king crab,   found near beaches. Red
  Bering Sea/Aleutian     golden king crab, and   king crab also found in
  Islands                 tanner crab             SAV.

  North Pacific FMP for   5 species/life stages   Found in rivers,
  Salmon Fisheries in the including: pink, chum,  streams, and bays. May
  EEZ off Coast of Alaska sockeye (red), chinook  also be found in
                          (King), and coho        wetlands, kelp, and
                          (silver)                SAV.

  North Pacific FMP for   4 species/life stages   Sometimes found in
  the Scallop Fisheries   including: Weathervane, shallow nearshore
  off Alaska              pink, spiny, and rock   waters.
                          scallops                
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**[North Pacific Fishery Management Council Policies]{.underline}**

Information presented in the Environmental Assessment for FMP Amendments
(NPFMC, 1999) is consistent with and supports the North Pacific
Council's long-standing habitat policy. The policy, as set forth in the
Council's FMP Amendment text, states:

The Council shall assume an aggressive role in the protection and
enhancement of habitats important to marine and anadromous fishery
resources. It shall actively enter Federal decision-making processes
where proposed actions may otherwise compromise the productivity of
fishery resources of concern to the Council. Recognizing that all
species are dependent on the quantity and quality of their essential
habitats, it is the policy of the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council to:

Conserve, restore, and maintain habitats upon which commercial,
recreational and subsistence marine fisheries depend, to increase their
extent and to improve their productive capacity for the benefit of
present and future generations. (For purposes of this policy, habitat is
defined to include all those things physical, chemical, and biological
that are necessary to the productivity of the species being managed.)

This policy shall be supported by three policy objectives which are to:

\(1\) Maintain the current quantity and productive capacity of habitats
supporting important commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries,
including their food base. (This objective will be implemented using a
guiding principle of NO NET HABITAT LOSS caused by human activities.)

\(2\) Restore and rehabilitate the productive capacity of habitats which
have already been degraded by human activities.

\(3\) Maintain productive natural habitats where increased fishery
productivity will benefit society.

**[Types of EFH Affected by Program Activities and Assessment of Effects
on EFH]{.underline}**

EFH is described and identified as everywhere that the above managed
species commonly occur. Summaries and assessments of habitat information
for species managed by the North Pacific Council are available in the
Habitat Assessment Reports for Essential Fish Habitat (TTEFH, 1998).
Maps of the general distributions of species and life stages are also
available. The general distribution is a subset of a species current or
historic range, and the geographical area containing most (approximately
95%) of the individuals across all seasons (TTEFH, 1998). Life history
and habitat association tables are also available for managed species
and each life stage.

The following discussions of freshwater and marine environments,
excerpted from the CRP EA (2001), complement the EFH descriptions of the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Because of the large
variability in the types of species comprising living marine resources,
a wide range of coastal regions and riparian systems along streams and
rivers that support fish must be considered as EFH for marine species.
Most CRP projects occur in urban areas impacted by human development and
pollution as well as in remote rural locations. Living marine resources
also utilize a wide variety of coastal biological habitats that are
restored under the CRP, including submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
beds, marshes, riparian areas, shorelines, and kelp habitats. These
various habitats are targeted for restoration because they have suffered
considerable degradation and loss of area in recent decades due to
dredging and filling, pollution, construction, and erosion. Each
discussion is followed by a description of potential restoration
activities that may occur during CRP projects and an assessment of their
impacts to EFH. Implementation of restoration activities under the CRP
may have a very localized and temporary adverse impact over the
short-term, but will provide beneficial habitat in the long-term. Under
the CRP, these restoration activities do not individually or
cumulatively have significant adverse impacts on the human environment,
and many projects may be eligible for categorical exclusion under NOAA
NEPA Guidance.

A. Freshwater Environments

For the freshwater component, EFH is described and identified as all
freshwater areas including riparian and shoreline habitats. The
restoration of freshwater environments typically include similar types
of activities such as removal of invasive species, revegetation, and the
placement or removal of structures such as logs, culverts, and dams.

1\. Riparian Areas

Riparian zones are defined as the land immediately adjacent to a stream
or a river. They are characteristic associations of substrate, flora,
and fauna within the 100-year flood plain of a stream or, if a flood
plain is absent, zones that are hydrologically influenced by a stream or
river (Hunt, 1988). In the West, riparian zones are commonly
characterized by streambank vegetation (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).
Riparian environments are maintained by high water tables and experience
seasonal or periodic flooding. They may also contain or adjoin riverine
wetlands and share many functions including water storage, sediment
retention, nutrient and contaminant removal as well as habitat
functions. They often share some of the characteristics of wetlands but
cannot be defined as wetlands because they are saturated at much lower
frequencies. Riparian ecosystems have distinctive vegetation and soils,
and are characterized by the combination of species diversity, density,
and productivity. Continuous interactions occur between riparian,
aquatic, and upland ecosystems through exchanges of energy, nutrients,
and species (NRC, 1995).

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

Alaska contains over 3,000 rivers and has over 3 million lakes with
areas greater than 19 acres (TTEFH, 1998). For the North Pacific salmon
fisheries in Alaska, EFH includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands,
and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in
the State. In addition to current and historically accessible waters
used by Alaska salmon, other potential spawning and rearing habitats
exist beyond the limits of upstream migration. Most Pacific salmon spawn
in riverine habitats such as riffles with clean gravel, between pools,
areas of moderate-to-fast currents, and side-channel sloughs. Larval
survival is dependent on the surrounding water which must be non-toxic
and of sufficient quality and quantity to provide basic requirements of
suitable temperatures, adequate supply of oxygen, and removal of waste
materials. Sockeye commonly spawn in lakes and also in upwelling areas.
Eulachon or candlefish eggs may be found adhering to sand grains and
other substrates on river bottoms throughout Alaska (TTFMC, 1998).
Eulachon may also be found spawning in rivers between the months of May
and June.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

Riparian habitat restorations usually involve re-vegetation activities
and placement of large woody debris (LWD. Placement of LWD is manually
done by volunteers, which may result in minor disturbance of the
surrounding habitat through increased foot traffic. This may result in
soil compaction as well as disturbance of existing vegetation or other
habitat structures.

Measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts include planning
ingress and egress routes to keep the impacted area to a minimum. To
prevent damage to stream bottoms during project implementation,
activities may be limited to periods when water levels are low. In
addition, the use of measures to protect the water column such as
erosion mats to minimize turbidity can prevent further damage to habitat
and species.

B. Marine Environments

In marine waters, EFH is described and identified as all marine waters
and substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock, hard bottom, and associated
biological communities) from the shoreline to the seaward limit of the
EEZ.

1\. Near Shore Habitats

a\) Intertidal Habitats

\(i\) Shoreline Habitats

Shore environments are widely varying in nature, from low-energy
sheltered environments to more exposed coastline, subjected to
high-energy wave and tidal action. Low-energy shorelines may be
characterized by finer-grained, muddier sediments, which tend to accrete
in depositional zones. Sandy beaches, characterized by sand, coarse sand
and cobbles, and that have few fine-grained silts and clays, are formed
by waves and tides sufficient to winnow away the finer particles. The
sand also typically "migrates" off- and onshore seasonally. In
lower-energy shoreline environments, there may be lower population
densities of a given species, but high diversity. Along higher-energy
shorelines, SAV and certain benthic organisms, such as mollusks and
worms, may exist because they can withstand the turbulence of such an
intertidal zone. Such environments may exhibit low species diversity,
but high population densities of those species that can tolerate the
high-energy conditions (for example, some invertebrates). Sand dunes
formed in these areas provide habitat for seabirds, including various
species of endangered seabirds which rely on beaches for nesting
habitat. Activities occurring in these areas may have impacts to
habitats immediately offshore such as SAV beds.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

A number of groundfish are found along beaches and in bays along the
Gulf of Alaska and Bering Straight/ Aleutian Islands. These include
species such as yellowfin sole, arrowtooth flounder, and rock sole, that
remain in shallow areas until they reach a certain size (TTEFM, 1998).
Yellowfin sole may also be found spawning in shallow waters from May
through August. Small juvenile sablefish/black cod may spend their first
winters and second summers in shallow waters until they reach a certain
size. Several sculpins such as yellow Irish lords, red Irish lords,
great sculpins, and plain sculpins are also found in sub- and intertidal
areas near shore. The Atka mackerel migrates annually to moderately
shallow waters during spawning. In Alaska, capelin are found along
beaches intertidally to depths of up to 10 m in May through July. In
addition, demersal shelf rockfish such as yelloweye, quillback, China,
and copper rockfish are also found in beaches and bays off the coast of
Alaska. Several forage fish are also found in near shore areas in the
Gulf of Alaska and Bering Straight/Aleutian Islands. These include
smelts such as capelins and eulachons, Pacific sandfish, Pholids
(Gunnels), and Stichaeids. Capelins are distributed along the entire
coastline of Alaska and spawn in intertidal zones in the spring.
Eulachon spawn in rivers throughout the Alaska Peninsula. Pacific
sandfish are found in shallow inshore waters to a depth of 50 m. Pholids
and stichaeids are also found in near shore waters among seaweeds and
under rocks. Walleye pollock and Pacific cod are also found along
coastal areas throughout Alaska.

Red king crabs and Tanner crabs are found on beaches and in bays along
the Bering Straight/Aleutian Islands. Both migrate to shallow waters for
reproduction. In Bristol Bay, red king crabs mate in waters of less than
50 m from January through June. Tanner crabs mate from February to June.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

Shoreline restoration typically involves the removal of invasive
species, which may result in potential adverse impacts to non-target
species. Invasive species removal may be performed using chemical,
mechanical, biological and ecological control methods, depending on the
characteristics of species being eradicated. CRP projects involving
invasive plant removals are usually accomplished using chemical methods,
where volunteers spot-treat plants individually, or mechanical methods
where plants are manually removed by hand. Herbicide application is
often effective in the removal of invasive species, but minor impacts to
surrounding areas may occur. Rainfall and wind may cause herbicides to
leach into the surrounding soil or be transported to non-invasive
plants, causing unintentional damage. The physical removal of invasive
species may also be effective, but potential impacts may occur if
revegetation by native species doesn't occur immediately following
invasives removal.

In order to minimize the potential impacts from invasive species removal
activities, certain precautions are taken. If volunteers manually remove
plants, ingress and egress routes are planned ahead of time to minimize
the area impacted. Prior to project implementation, volunteers receive
proper training on technically-sound methods to apply herbicides and
remove invasive plants by hand. This ensures the proper application of
herbicides used to remove invasive species to avoid unintentional damage
to native plants. Pesticides are not applied during rainy or windy
periods. Near Shore Environments

\(ii\) Marsh Habitats

Marsh habitats vary with coastal geographic location. Salt marshes exist
on the transition zone between the land and the sea in protected
low-energy areas such as estuaries, lagoons, bays, and river mouths
(Copeland, 1998). Marsh ecosystems, like all wetlands, are a function of
hydrology, soil, and biota. Tidal cycles allow salty and brackish water
to inundate and drain the salt marsh, circulating organic and inorganic
nutrients throughout the marsh. Water is also the medium in which most
organisms live. The marshes are strongly influenced by tidal flushing
and stream flow, which affect the inundation and salinity regimes of
salt marsh soils. In areas with enough runoff, salt marshes transition
into brackish and freshwater marshes (Copeland, 1998). Sand- and
mudflats occur at extreme low water, whereas salt marsh vegetation
develops where the soils are more exposed to the air than inundated by
tides, usually above mean sea level. *Carex* spp. (sedge) typically
dominate the lower marsh. Salt marshes are of paramount ecological
importance because they 1) export vital nutrients to adjacent waters; 2)
improve water quality through the removal and recycling of inorganic
nutrients; 3) absorb wave energy from stops and act as a water reservoir
to reduce damage further inland; 4) serve an important role in nitrogen
and sulfur cycling; and 5) provide cover and habitat for fish (Mitsch
and Gosselink, 1993; Turner, 1977; Thayer et al., 1981; Zimmerman et
al., 1984).

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

Waters adjacent to salt marshes that are not designated as EFH for
managed species may contain species which inhabit near shore estuarine
areas.

*Potential Impacts From Restoration Activities:*

Salt marsh restorations may involve removal of invasive vegetation,
revegetation of native plants, and culvert replacement to restore tidal
flushing. Revegetation is usually performed with the help of volunteers
which may result in minor disturbance of the surrounding habitat through
increased foot traffic. This may result in soil compaction as well as
disturbance of existing vegetation or other habitat structures. If
activities occur during periods when fish may be present in the area,
damage to EFH may occur. Invasive species removal is performed using
methods similar to those in coastal areas.

Measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from restoration
activities include the use of turbidity curtains and other forms of
water column protection to prevent the flow and/or washing out of
disturbed debris from the tidal creek. These measures should also
localize erosion to an isolated area. In order to minimize the potential
impacts from invasive species removal activities, certain precautions
are taken. Ingress and egress routes for volunteers are planned to
minimize the area impacted. Volunteers are also properly trained on
technically-sound methods to apply herbicides and removing invasive
plants. Herbicides used to remove invasive species are applied directly
with special care to avoid unintentional damage to native plants.
Herbicides are not applied during rainy or windy periods.

b\) Subtidal Habitats

\(i\) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)

Submerged grasses or SAV differ from most other wetland plants in that
they are almost exclusively subtidal, occur mainly in marine salinities
and utilize the water column for support. SAV occur across a wide depth
range, from rocky intertidal habitats to depths of 40 meters, and for
some species, broad latitudinal ranges. Distribution patterns are
influenced by light, salinity, temperature, substrate type, and
currents. SAV habitat is currently threatened because of the cumulative
effects of overpopulation, commercial development, and recreation
activities in the coastal zone. SAV supply many habitat functions,
including: (1) support of large numbers of epiphytic organisms; (2)
damping of waves and slowing of currents which enhances sediment
stability and increases the accumulation of organic and inorganic
material; (3) binding by roots of sediments, thus reducing erosion and
preserving sediment microflora; (4) roots and leaves provide horizontal
and vertical complexity to habitat, which, together with abundant and
varied food sources, support densities of fauna generally exceeding
those in unvegetated habitats; and 5) provide cover and habitat for fish
(Wood *et. al*., 1969; Thayer *et. al*., 1984).

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

Copper rockfish may be found in seagrass areas in the Gulf of Alaska
(TTFMC, 1998).

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

SAV restoration often involves transplanting seagrass plants from
existing SAV donor beds, which can cause short- and long-term adverse
impacts to SAV. These include temporary and permanent damage to existing
beds by volunteers, which may reduce the quality and quantity of EFH in
the donor area. SAV plants may also be damaged during transplant.
Planting may result in disturbance of existing bottom-substrate from
clearing or digging.

One method of avoiding potential impacts by volunteers is through the
use of TERFS ^TM^ racks (Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely using Frame
Systems), which allows seagrass to be transplanted by volunteers with
little contact with the water. This method minimizes turbidity and other
potential impacts to bottom sediment from divers as well as impacts to
SAV plants from handling and storage. This system attaches seagrass
plants to reusable wire frames with biodegradable ties. The frames are
then dropped to the bottom of the restoration site where seagrass roots
can then anchor new shoots in place. This method minimizes potential
impacts to bottom sediment from divers as well as impacts to SAV plants
from handling and storage. In order to avoid damage to transplanted SAV
plants, projects may also be required to complete transplanting
activities within 24 hours of collection from donor beds. Plants should
also be gathered through careful field collection to minimize damage to
existing beds.

2\. Offshore Environments

a\) Kelp Beds

Kelp forests are subtidal marine communities dominated by large brown
algae (kelps) that form floating canopies on the surface of the sea.
Kelp forest communities are found from sea level to as deep as 60
meters, depending on light penetration (Foster and Schiel, 1985). Kelp
forests are highly productive and create a three-dimensional aspect to
the nearshore environment, providing habitat and food for hundreds of
other species of plants (algae), and animals. Kelp forests on hard reef
areas can harbor lush understory layers of red and brown algae, as well
as mobile and encrusting invertebrates. Throughout the kelp forest,
there are hundreds of species of fish distributed across vertical layers
of vegetation that vary with depth (Schiel and Foster, 1992). Food is
exported from kelp forests to associated communities such as sandy
beaches and the deep sea.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

In the Gulf of Alaska, demersal shelf rockfish such as quillback, China,
and copper rockfish may be found in kelp (TTFMC, 1998). In the Gulf of
Alaska and Bering Straight/Aleutian Islands, the Atka mackerel may spawn
on kelp in shallow water. Two families of forage fish, Pholids and
Stichaeids are also found in near shore waters among seaweeds and under
rocks.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

Kelp restoration may include tying down mature kelp plants on vacant
substrate, removing grazers or competitors, seeding the area with spores
from healthy plants, and tagging and monitoring the growth of kelp.
Activities may require the use of volunteer divers to prepare, plant and
maintain project sites.

The greatest potential for short-term impacts is the possibility of
volunteer divers doing more damage to kelp beds during project
implementation. Impacts may include damages to kelp beds from equipment,
boats, anchoring, and divers themselves.

To minimize these disturbances, certified volunteer divers with proper
training in low-impact restoration techniques are used. Low-impact
techniques include having no more than four divers per group, the use of
appropriate dive equipment and tools, expert boat anchoring,
job-specific diver training, and diver awareness. Any equipment or
materials used during the restoration is removed from the site upon
completion.

b\) Shellfish Beds

Shellfish beds may be found in intertidal and subtidal areas, where
suitable substrate and adequate larval supply exist, along with
appropriate (brackish to estuarine) salinity levels and water
circulation. They may be supplemented by transferring additional clams
and bivalves from labs or donor beds.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

Shellfish beds are not designated EFH areas for managed species in
Alaska.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

The restoration of shellfish beds involves the hand placement of shell
at specific sites during low tide. Potential impacts may include
temporary increases in turbidity when shellfish are removed or placed by
hand. Since restoration activities take place during low tide, little
impact to the surrounding habitat occurs. Any impacts that could occur
are significantly less than the increases in turbidity associated with
rising tides.

**[NOAA Restoration Center Conservation Measures]{.underline}**

The North Pacific Council encourages the conservation and enhancement of
EFH through the enhancement of rivers, streams, and coastal areas and
through the creation of habitat (NPFMC, 1999). The Council also
acknowledges the potential impacts to EFH that may result from these
activities and suggests measures to avoid them. These measures include,
but are not limited to erosion control, road stabilization, upgrading
culverts, removal of fish obstructions, and improvement of watershed
management.

The NOAA RC has developed additional measures to mitigate possible
impacts of CRP activities on EFH in the North Pacific region. These
measures are specific to restoration activities within project areas and
have already been put to use in funded projects. The NOAA RC finds that
these measures are protective of EFH. These measures which are normally
specified in CRP contracts are:

1\. Use of Best Management Practices (BMP)

Best management practices (BMPs) are measures to minimize and avoid all
potential impacts to EFH during CRP restoration activities. This
conservation measure requires the use of BMPs during restoration
activities to reduce impacts from project implementation. BMPs shall
include but are not limited to:

a\. Measures to protect the water column - Turbidity curtains, haybales,
and erosion mats shall be

used

b\. Staging areas - Areas used for staging will occur in non-wetland
areas only. Planning for use

of these staging areas will be carried out in advance and impact areas
will be kept to a

minimum size.

c\. Buffer areas around sensitive resources - Rare plants, archeological
sites, etc., will be flagged

and avoided.

d\. Invasive species - Measures to ensure native fauna and vegetation or
revegetation success

will be identified and implemented.

2\. Avoidance of Work During Critical Fish Windows

This conservation measure requires CRP projects to be scheduled to avoid
work when managed species are expected in the area. These periods shall
be determined prior to project implementation to avoid any potential
impacts.

3\. Use of FMP Conservation Measures

In addition to measures stated in this section, EFH conservation
measures provided by each Council will be incorporated into projects to
minimize potential impacts. These measures address project-specific
activities that may impact EFH and offer guidance to reduce these
impacts.

4\. Adequate Training of Volunteers

The adequate training measure is intended to ensure minimal impact to
the restoration site through proper training and education of
volunteers. Volunteers shall be trained in the use of low-impact
techniques for planting, equipment handling, and any other activities
associated with the restoration. Proper diving techniques will also be
used by volunteer divers.

Training volunteers to perform restoration activities using low-impact
techniques will minimize impacts to critical habitat for species managed
by the North Pacific Council.

5\. Monitoring

Monitoring will be conducted before, during, and after project
implementation to ensure compliance with project design and restoration
success. If immediate post-construction monitoring reveals that
unavoidable impacts to EFH have occurred, appropriate coordination with
regional EFH personnel will take place to determine appropriate response
measures, possibly including mitigation.

6\. Mitigation for Potential Impacts

Any unavoidable damage to EFH during project implementation will be
fully mitigated within one growing season.

7\. Post-Project Implementation Removal

Any temporary access pathways and staging areas will be removed or
restored to re-establish or improve site conditions.

8\. Use of Heavy Equipment

The use of heavy equipment (e.g., graders, front-end loaders, and
backhoes \-- to move earth, trees, etc.) that has the potential to
impact soil stability should be avoided to the maximum extent possible.
If the use of heavy equipment is not avoidable, then project-specific
consultation will be required.

9\. Multiple Tracking Events/Soil Compaction

If activities in the project site necessitates multiple episodes of
individuals accessing or tracking through the site, appropriate methods
to avoid or minimize impacts will be used. On a case-by-case basis,
potential impacts to the project site as a consequence of these
activities will be evaluated in the project planning phase prior to the
start of these activities.

**[Project-Specific Consultation]{.underline}**

If the proposed project plans are substantially different than plans
mentioned in this consultation or if new information becomes available
that affects the basis for no adverse affect determination, then EFH
consultation will be reinitiated.

**[References]{.underline}**

Burger, C.V., R.L. Wilmot, and D.B. Wangaard. 1985. Comparison of
spawning areas and times for two

runs of chinook salmon (*Oncorhynchus kisutch*) in the Kenai River,
Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 693-700.

Copeland, B.J. 1998. Salt Marsh Restoration: Coastal Habitat
Enhancement. North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh, NC. 32
pp.

EFH Core Team for West Coast Groundfish. 1998. Appendix: Life History
Descriptions for the West Coast Groundfish. National Marine Fisheries
Service. Seattle, WA. June, 1998.

Available:
[[http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/efhappendix/page1.html]{.underline}](http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/efhappendix/page1.html)

Healey, M. C. 1991. The life history of chinook salmon *(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha*). In: C. Groot and L. Margolis eds., Life history of
Pacific salmon, p. 311-393. Univ. BC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.

Hunt, C. 1988. Down by the river. Washington, D. C., Island Press.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. *Wetlands*. New York, Van
Nostrand Reinhold.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation Guidance. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of
Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland. Nov. 1999.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. A Primer for Federal
Agencies - Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation
Mandate for Federal Agencies. Habitat Conservation Division. Long Beach,
CA. Jul. 2001. Available:
[[http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/efhprim.htm]{.underline}](http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/efhprim.htm)

NOAA Restoration Center (RC). 2001. DRAFT Environmental Assessment and
FONSI for Implementation of NOAA Fisheries' Community-Based Restoration
Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat
Conservation, Silver Spring, MD. May 2001.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and
Boundaries. Committee on Characterization of Wetlands, Water Science and
Technology Board, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology.
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NAFMC). 1999. Environmental
Assessment for Essential

Fish Habitat Amendments. Anchorage, AK. Jan. 20, 1999.

Technical Teams for Essential Fish Habitat (TTEFH). 1998. Habitat
Assessment Reports for Essential

Fish Habitat. National Marine Fisheries Service, North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Anchorage, AK. Mar. 31, 1998.

Thayer, G. W., W. J. Kenworthy, and M. S. Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of
seagrass meadows of the Atlantic Coast: A community profile. U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-84/02. 147 pp.

Wood , E. J. F., W. E. Odum, and J. C. Zieman. 1969. Influence of sea
grasses on the

productivity of coastal lagoons. pp. 495-502. *In*, A. Ayala Castanares
and F. B. Phleger,

Eds. *Coastal Lagoons*. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad

Universitaria, Mexico, D. F.