**[APPENDIX F]{.underline}**

**ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT**

> ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE
> NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE (NEW
> ENGLAND/MID-ATLANTIC) AND NOAA RESTORATION CENTER, COMMUNITY-BASED
> RESTORATION PROGRAM

Number range CHAPTER**ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT**

**Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Programmatic Consultation between the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office**

**(New England/Mid-Atlantic) and NOAA Restoration Center,
Community-Based Restoration Program**

# Purpose

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
programmatically to broadly consider as many adverse effects as possible
through programmatic EFH conservation recommendations.

This programmatic consultation applies to restoration activities
undertaken in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions through the NOAA
Restoration Center's (RC) Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP) to
restore habitat for living marine resources.

**[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; natural or artificial reef/substrate/habitat
creation; establishment or repair of riparian buffer zones and
improvement of freshwater habitats that support 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 fisheries.

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 will
be maintained in-house if the RC issues individual awards for projects.

In the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions, the RC CRP is evaluated
through the National Environmental Policy Act components typically
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, shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation, kelp,
shoreline habitats in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic regions. 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 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.

The creation of shellfish reefs may result in adverse impacts to the
surrounding habitat, depending on the source from which shell is
obtained. Shells are commonly obtained via two methods: 1) from dredge
shell programs which may result in localized turbidity problems, and 2)
purchasing shell through shucking houses, which result in no adverse
impacts. During creation of reefs, additional turbidity problems may
arise when shells are deployed onto the reef.

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 such kelp forest restoration, 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 kelp
beds by divers or equipment, disruption of bottom sediment from diving
fins, and impacts resulting from the transplanting of coral and kelp 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 one generic
amendment to FMPs in New England and a summary of FMPs in the
Mid-Atlantic.

**New England Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment to Fishery
Management Plans (FMP)**

The EFH amendments (NEFMC, 1998) represent the New England Fishery
Management Council's (New England Council) response to those
requirements stated in Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16
U.S.C. 1801 [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.) by serving as a generic
amendment to the following FMPs:

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Multispecies (Groundfish)**
    Fishery in New England

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Atlantic Salmon** Fishery in New
    England

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Monkfish** Fishery in New
    England/Mid-Atlantic

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Sea Scallop** Fishery in New
    England

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Atlantic Herring** Fishery in New
    England

    The generic EFH document (NEFMC, 1998) amends four existing and one
    proposed FMP of the New England Council. EFH is identified and
    described based on areas where the various life stages of 19 managed
    species occur. The 19 species are groundfish (Atlantic cod, *Gadus
    morhua*; Witch flounder, *Glyptocephalus cynoglossus;* American
    plaice, *Hippoglossoides platessoides*; Yellowtail flounder,
    *Pleuronectes ferruginea*; Ocean pout, *Macrozoarces americanus*;
    Haddock, *Melanogrammus aeglefinus*; Whiting, *Merluccius
    bilinearis*; Pollock, *Pollachius virens*; Winter Flounder,
    *Pleuronectes americanus*; Windowpane flounder, *Scophthalmus
    aquosus*; Redfish, *Sebastes faciatus*; Red hake, *Urophycis chuss*;
    White hake, *Urophycis tenuis*; Atlantic halibut, *Hippoglossus
    hippoglossus*; Offshore hake, *Merluccius albidus*), Monkfish,
    *Lophius americanus*; Atlantic sea scallop, *Placopecten
    magellanicus*; Atlantic sea herring*, Clupea harengus;* and Atlantic
    salmon, *Salmo salar*.

    **Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic Region**

    Six FMPs exist in the Mid-Atlantic region. The EFH sections within
    each amendment are summarized in the EFH Summary (MAFMC) which
    serves as a guide and a cross-reference to facilitate EFH
    consultations State and Federal agencies and NMFS and the Council.
    The EFH Summary (MAFMC) reviews the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council's (Mid-Atlantic Council) amendments to the following FMPs:

-   Fishery Management Plan for **Summer Flounder, Scup, & Black Sea
    Bass** Fishery in the Mid-Atlantic

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Spiny Dogfish** Fishery in the
    Mid-Atlantic and New England

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Surf Clam & Ocean Quahog** Fishery
    in the Mid-Atlantic

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, &
    Butterfish **Fishery in the Mid-Atlantic

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Bluefish** Fishery in the
    Mid-Atlantic

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Tilefish** Fishery in the
    Mid-Atlantic

    EFH is identified and described based on areas where various life
    stages of 12 managed species commonly occur. The 12 species are
    Atlantic Mackerel, *Scomber scombrus*; Long-finned Squid, *Loligo
    pealei;* Short-finned Squid, *Illex illecebrosus*; Butterfish,
    *Peprilus triacanthus*; Bluefish, *Pomatomus saltatrix;* Spiny
    Dogfish, *Squalus acanthias*; Surf clam, *Spisula solidissima*;
    Ocean Quahog, *Arctica islandica*; Summer Flounder, *Paralichtyys
    dentatus*; Scup, *Stenotomus chrysops*; Black Sea Bass,
    *Centropristis striata striata*; and Tilefish, *Lopholatilus
    chamaeleonticeps*.

    **Secretarial FMPs**

    Two other Secretarial Fishery Management Plans are effective in New
    England and the Mid-Atlantic: The Highly Migratory Species (Tunas,
    Sharks, and Swordfish) FMP and the Atlantic Billfish FMP (HMSMD,
    1999). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal jurisdiction of EFH
    for Highly Migratory Species and Atlantic Billfish spans the area
    between the Canadian border in the north and the Dry Tortugas in the
    south as well as the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. Caribbean.

    The following sections address EFH for managed species that may be
    encountered during community-based restoration projects in New
    England and the Mid-Atlantic. Table 1 lists the FMPs and species
    that have EFH designations and are likely to be encountered in a CRP
    project. Table 2 lists the FMPs and species unlikely to be found in
    a CRP project area.

    Table 1. Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) in New England and the
    Mid-Atlantic, species managed under each FMP, and the reasons for
    *inclusion* under the CRP Environmental Assessment (EA).

  ---------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------
  **NEW ENGLAND**                                 

  Fishery Management     Species Managed Under    Reason for Inclusion
  Plan                   FMP                      

  New England            Atlantic cod, haddock,   Found in bays,
  Multispecies FMP       ocean pout, American     estuaries and some
                         plaice, pollock, red     rivers
                         hake, white hake,        
                         whiting, windowpane      
                         flounder, winter         
                         flounder, and yellowtail 
                         flounder & life stages   

  New England Atlantic   Atlantic herring & its   Found in bays,
  Herring FMP            life stages              estuaries and nearshore
                                                  waters

  New England FMP for    Atlantic salmon & its    Freshwater EFH for
  Atlantic Salmon        life stages              salmon fisheries
                                                  includes all streams,
                                                  lakes, ponds, wetlands,
                                                  and other water bodies
                                                  currently or
                                                  historically accessible
                                                  to salmon. Marine EFH
                                                  for salmon fisheries
                                                  includes all estuarine
                                                  and marine areas
                                                  utilized by salmon,
                                                  extending from
                                                  influence of tidewater
                                                  and tidally submerged
                                                  habitats to the limits
                                                  of the U.S. EEZ

  New                    2 species/life stages    Near-shore waters, bays
  England/Mid-Atlantic                            and estuaries
  FMP for Monkfish                                

  New England FMP for    Atlantic sea scallop &   Found in near-shore
  Atlantic Sea Scallops  its life stages          bays and estuaries

  New                    Spiny dogfish & its life Found in warm waters
  England/Mid-Atlantic   stages                   over the continental
  FMP for Spiny Dogfish                           shelf, depths greater
                                                  than 5m and in
                                                  nearshore areas

  Secretarial FMP for    3 species/life stages of Found in near-shore
  Tunas, Sharks, and     tuna, 1 species of       waters, bays and
  Swordfish              swordfish, and 3 species estuaries
                         of shark (great          
                         hammerhead, nurse shark, 
                         blacktip shark)          
  ---------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------

  ---------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------
  **MID-ATLANTIC**                                

  Fishery Management     Species Managed Under    Reason for Inclusion
  Plan                   FMP                      

  Mid-Atlantic FMP for   Summer flounder, scup,   Found in pelagic,
  Summer Flounder, Scup, black sea bass & life    demersal, and nearshore
  and Black Sea Bass     stages.                  waters, shellfish and
                                                  seagrass beds,
                                                  sandy-shelly areas, and
                                                  rough bottoms.

  Mid-Atlantic/New       Spiny dogfish & life     Found in warm waters
  England FMP for Spiny  stages                   over the continental
  Dogfish                                         shelf, depths greater
                                                  than 5m and in
                                                  nearshore areas

  Mid-Atlantic/New       2 species/life stages    Near-shore waters, bays
  England FMP for                                 and estuaries
  Monkfish                                        

  Mid-Atlantic FMP for   Surf clam, ocean quahogs Found from the beach
  Surf Clam and Ocean    & life stages            out to approximately 65
  Quahog                                          m deep, vertically in
                                                  substrate to 1 m depth

  Mid-Atlantic FMP for   Atlantic mackerel,       Demersal eggs found
  Atlantic Mackerel,     *Loligo, Illex*,         attached to aquatic
  Squid and Butterfish   butterfish & life stages vegetation or rocks in
                                                  shallower waters

  Mid-Atlantic FMP for   Bluefish & life stages   Juveniles and adults
  Bluefish                                        found in estuarine and
                                                  nearshore waters

  Secretarial FMP for    3 species/life stages of Found in near-shore
  Tunas, Sharks, and     tuna, 1 species of       waters, bays and
  Swordfish              swordfish, and 3 species estuaries
                         of shark (great          
                         hammerhead, nurse shark, 
                         blacktip shark)          
  ---------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------

Table 2. Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) in New England and the
Mid-Atlantic, species managed under each FMP, and the reasons for
*exclusion* under the CRP Environmental Assessment (EA).

  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------
  **NEW                                            
  ENGLAND/MID-ATLANTIC**                           

  Fishery Management Plan  Species Managed Under   Reason for Exclusion
                           FMP                     
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Mid-Atlantic FMP for    Tilefish, life stages   Found on the outer
  Tilefish                                        continental shelf.

  Secretarial FMP for     Blue marlin, White      Found in epipelagic
  Atlantic Billfish       marlin, Longbill        waters in upper 300-600
                          spearfish, Sailfish ,   ft open sea areas and
                          life stages             neritic waters over the
                                                  continental shelf.
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**[New England Council Policies]{.underline}**

The New England Fishery Management Council's jurisdiction extends from
Maine to southern New England, although some NEFMC-managed species range
to the mid-Atlantic. Information presented in the EFH generic amendment
(NEFMC, 1998) is consistent with and supports the Gulf Council's
long-standing habitat policy. The policy, as set forth in the Council's
Habitat Policy and Management Objectives, states:

Recognizing that all species are dependent on the quantity and quality
of their habitat, it is the policy of the New England Fishery Management
Council to promote and encourage the conservation, restoration and
enhancement of the habitat upon which living marine resources depend.

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

\(1\) Maintain and rehabilitate the current quantity and quality of
habitats supporting harvested

species, including their prey base.

\(2\) Restore and rehabilitate fish habitats which have already been
degraded.

\(3\) Create and develop fish habitats where increased availability of
fishery resources will benefit society.

\(4\) Modify fishing methods and create incentives to reduce the impacts
on habitat associated

with fishing.

These objectives are based on ensuring the sustainability of harvested
species and optimizing the societal benefits of our marine resources.

The Council shall assume an active role in the protection and
enhancement of habitats important to marine and anadromous fish. In
support of the Council's habitat policy, the management objectives for
the EFH amendment (NEFMC, 1998) are:

\(a\) To the maximum extent possible, to identify and describe all
essential fish habitat for those

species of finfish and mollusks managed by the Council;

\(b\) To identify all major threats to the essential fish habitat of
those species managed by the

Council; and

\(c\) To identify existing and potential mechanisms to protect,
conserve, and enhance the essential fish habitat of those species
managed by the Council, to the extent practicable.

**[Mid-Atlantic Council Policies]{.underline}**

The Mid-Atlantic Council has jurisdiction over fisheries in federal
waters which occur predominantly off the mid-Atlantic coast. It includes
waters off the coasts of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

[**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. In New England and the Mid-Atlantic, the EFH
determination is based on source document reports from NMFS for each
species managed by the Councils (NEFMC, 1998). The reports consist of a
description of the habitat associations and requirements for species
across all life stages, including summary descriptions of relevant
survey data that indicate the relative abundance of and range for each
species. This information is used by the Council to develop appropriate
EFH designations for all species that identify preferred geographic
areas, substrate, and ideal ranges for water temperature, depth, and
salinity. The text descriptions of EFH set the environmental parameters
within which the map designations are considered. Text descriptions, map
designations, and tables identifying bays and estuaries included in the
EFH designations for the existing FMPs for each life stage are available
in Section 3.4 of the New England EFH amendment. For the Mid-Atlantic,
text descriptions and habitat association tables for managed FMPs are
found in the EFH Summary (MAFMC, 1998).

The following discussions of estuarine and marine environments,
excerpted from the CRP EA (2001), complement the EFH descriptions of the
New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. 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 riparian areas,
marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation, oyster/artificial reefs,
shorelines, and kelp forests. 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. Most restoration activities are considered non-fishing
related threats but are not addressed in the chemical, biological, and
physical descriptions of non-fishing impacts provided by the FMPs. In
Section 6.4.2 of the EFH Amendment, restoration and education outreach
are taken into consideration by the New England Council as management
approaches or measures to conserve and enhance EFH (NEFMC, 1998). Since
activities are aimed at restoring habitats for living marine resources,
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. Estuarine Environments

For the estuarine component, EFH is described and identified as all
estuarine waters and substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock and associated
biological communities), including the sub-tidal vegetation (SAV and
algae) and adjacent inter-tidal vegetation (marshes and mangroves).
These areas provide essential nursery habitat for the development of
many anadromous, estuarine, and marine fish and invertebrates. The
restoration of estuarine environments typically include similar types of
activities such as removal of invasive species, revegetation, and the
placement or removal of structures such as logs or culverts.

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 East, riparian zones are commonly
characterized by bottomland hardwood and floodplain forests (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:*

Essential fish habitat descriptions provided by the New England and
Mid-Atlantic Councils do not include detailed descriptions of riverine
or riparian systems and their distribution within each of the management
areas. Potential impacts to managed species would be limited to species
within estuarine habitats and along stream channels such as marsh edges,
SAV, and pools and riffles. In New England, eggs, larvae, and spawning
adult stages of Atlantic salmon may occur above or below or a pool or
interspersed with deeper riffles in rivers and estuaries. Juvenile
stages of red drum also use shallow backwaters of estuaries as nursery
areas and remain there until they move to deeper water portions of the
estuary associated with river mouths.

*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 can prevent further damage to habitat and species.

2\. 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 predominate 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 and sea turtles,
including various species of endangered sea turtles which rely on
beaches for nesting habitat. Activities occurring in these areas may
have impacts to habitats immediately offshore such as SAV beds,
mangroves, and reefs.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

The New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts contain a variety of habitats
critical to inshore and offshore habitat conditions. These habitats
include rocky intertidal zones, sandy beaches as well as inland wetlands
and salt marshes. Sandy beaches are most extensive along the coasts of
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine (Gordon, 1994). A
variety of marine and terrestrial organisms are present in different
zones of the beach and function as foraging and spawning habitats for
marine resources (NEFMC, 1998). The upper beach is suitable habitat for
dune grasses, invertebrates and nesting birds. Invertebrates and birds
are also found along the intertidal zone. The subtidal zone presents
suitable habitat for several invertebrates and fish. In New England,
adult stages of red drum may occur in beach fronts. Juvenile and adult
stages of surfclams and ocean quahogs managed by the Mid-Atlantic
Council occur in the beach zone to 200-feet from the Gulf of Maine to
Georges Bank.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

Shoreline restoration 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 doesn't
occur immediately.

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 to minimize the area
impacted. Prior to project implementation, volunteers receive proper
training on 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.

3\. 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. *Spartina* spp. (cordgrass)
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; and 4) serve an important
role in nitrogen and sulfur cycling (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993; Turner,
1977; Thayer et al., 1981; Zimmerman et al., 1984).

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

In New England, salt marshes are found throughout the Gulf of Maine with
major marshes being located on Cape Cod, the north shore of
Massachusetts, and the coast of Maine (Gordon, 1994). Mud- and sandflats
also occur throughout the Gulf of Maine wherever proper sedimentary
conditions exist, especially in Cape Cod Bay. In New England, juvenile
black sea bass and summer flounder may use salt marsh edges and
channels. Estuarine wetlands are especially important habitat for red
drum larvae.

*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
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 be applied during rainy or windy periods.

4\. 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; and, (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 (Wood *et. al*., 1969; Thayer
*et. al*., 1984). They also provide nursing grounds for many juvenile
fish species and habitat for many larval and adult invertebrates
critical to near-shore food chains.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

The primary types of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in New England
are eelgrass (*Zostera marina*) and widgeon grass (*Ruppia maritima*).
SAV is found along the coast of Maine and southern New England. SAV
serves as important nursery grounds for a number of commercially and
recreationally important species. In addition, they are specialized
refuges and a rich food source for herbivores. In New England, juvenile
pollock and summer flounder use bottom habitats with aquatic vegetation
in the intertidal zone as nursery areas. Juvenile black sea bass also
use eelgrass beds offshore from New Jersey during wintering. Juvenile
scup are found in eelgrass beds in estuaries and bays during the spring
and summer. Red drum larvae and cobia may also be found in seagrass
beds. Atlantic cod are often associated with SAV because they use it as
a predation refuge (Gotceitas *et. al.*, 1997). Egg and larval stages of
summer flounder managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council may be found in SAV
beds and nearshore areas from 12 to 50 miles offshore. Juvenile black
sea bass are also found in SAV beds from the Atlantic coast to limits of
the EEZ, as well as from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

SAV restoration often involves transplanting seagrass plants from
existing SAV donor beds, which can cause short-term adverse impacts to
SAV. These include temporary damages 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 with little contact
with the water. This system attaches seagrass plants to reusable wire
frames with biodegradable ties which are 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.

B. Marine Environments

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

1\. Oyster Shell/Artificial Reefs

Oyster reefs 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. Oyster beds historically were found along the East Coast,
but have been greatly reduced in occurrence as a result of anthropogenic
impacts in the past 200 years (Kennedy and Sanford, 1995). Artificial
reefs have recently been used to enhance fishery habitat by replacing
habitat and ecosystem functions to support entire biological
communities. Oyster beds are built by the cementing together of oyster
shells, with additional hard substrate provided by associates such as
other bivalves, barnacles, and calcareous tube builders such as some
polychaetes (Kennedy and Sanford, 1995). Larvae of these invertebrates
settle seasonally on this substrate. Eventually, a mound forms and grows
vertically and laterally as oysters accumulate and shell is scattered in
the bed's vicinity (Bahr and Lanier, 1981). Oyster reefs can vary in
morphology, influenced by local effects (Kennedy and Sanford, 1995).
Oyster beds have in the past been an important food source as well as
providing shore protection (hard substrate), water clarification, and
habitat for other invertebrates.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

In New England, juvenile and adult stages of black sea bass are found on
shellfish beds, patches, and artificial structures. EFH for spawning
adult Atlantic herring, Atlantic sea scallops, monkfish, and juvenile
red hake is in areas with shell fragments or sandy and shelly areas.
Adult spawning ocean pout may be found near artificial reefs in late
summer through early winter while adult pollock are found from September
through April. Juvenile and adult stages of black sea bass are found
near natural and man-made sand and shell substrates during different
times of the year. Juveniles occur in coastal locations from April
through December between Virginia and Massachusetts. During wintering,
they occur offshore of New Jersey. Wintering adult stages of white sea
bass occur offshore in New York through North Carolina from November
through April. Juvenile and adult stages of summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council are found in
shellfish beds and artificial habitats.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

Shellfish/Artificial reef creation involves the placement of shell
and/or other materials at specific sites to provide hard substrate for
aquatic communities. The placement of the reef may result in impacts to
bottom-dwelling benthic organisms and fish in the area which may be
buried during the placement of reef material. Temporary increases in
turbidity may also result when materials are placed. When oyster shell
is used, is it often washed overboard from barges which minimizes
turbidity problems.

Impacts may also result depending on the source from which shell for the
reef is obtained. Shells are commonly acquired via two method. Dredge
shell programs obtain buried shells by dredging areas, which can cause
short-term turbidity problems. In addition, any aquatic organisms in the
area would be eliminated. The other method of obtaining shell is to
purchase them through shucking houses. This method has no adverse
impacts to the aquatic environment.

Potential impacts from oyster/artificial reef creation may be minimized
by ensuring that shells are washed overboard onto the reef sites instead
of being dumped overboard, which would result in turbidity plumes.
Artificial reefs should be constructed using materials that do not
impact EFH. In addition, shell will only be obtained from shucking
houses where no impacts to habitat were made during shell acquisition.

2\. Kelp Forests

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
beds 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:*

Along the east coast, kelp plants with floating canopies do not occur
although plants can obtain heights over 6 meters above the bottom
(Schiel and Foster, 1992). In New England, kelp is usually limited to
the coast of the Gulf of Maine (NEFMC, 1998). Kelp is a source of
detritus and primary productivity that is important in the numerous
chemical and biological cycles in New England (NEFMC, 1998). Kelp and
rockweed are abundant benthic seaweeds within New England waters and are
found along the coast of the Gulf of Maine. Kelp plants function as a
complex habitat, providing refuge from predators and foraging habitat
for a variety of marine and estuarine organisms. In New England, sea
scallops, winter flounder, and lobsters have been documented to inhabit
kelp beds.

*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.

**[RC Conservation Measures]{.underline}**

The RC has developed measures to mitigate possible impacts of CRP
activities on environmental resources and non-CRP activities. 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 be planned in advance
and 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 vegetation or
    revegetation success with 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
under the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils.

5\. Monitoring

Monitoring will be conducted before, during, and after project
implementation to ensure compliance with project design and restoration
success.

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.

**[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}**

Bahr, L. M. and W. P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster
reefs of the South Atlantic coast: a community profile. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service FWS/OBS/81.15. Washington D.C. 105 pp.

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

Gordon, D.C., Jr. 1994. Location, extent, and importance of marine
habitats in the Gulf of Maine. In

Gulf of Maine Habitats: Workshop Proceedings, RARGOM Report Number 94-2,
D. Stevenson and E. Braasch, eds.pp. 15-24.

Gorceitas, V., S. Frase, and J.A. Brown. 1997. Use of eelgrass beds
(*Zostera marina*) by juvenile Atlantic cod (*Gadus morhua*). Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54(6): 1306-1319.

Highly Migratory Species Management Division (HMSMD). 1999. Amendment 1
to the Atlantic

Billfish Fishery Management Plan. Silver Spring, MD. Apr. 1999. Sections
1.1 - 7.4 plus appendices.

Highly Migratory Species Management Division (HMSMD). 1999. Final
Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. Vol. II. Silver Spring, MD. Apr.
1999. Sections 5.4.

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

Kennedy, V. S., and L. P. Sanford. 1975. Characteristics of Relatively
Unexploited Beds of the

Eastern Oyster, *Crassostrea virginica* , and Early Restoration
Programs. Chapter 2. *In*, M. W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, and J. A. Wesson,
Eds., Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration: A Synopsis and Synthesis of
Approaches. Pp. 25-46.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1998. Summary of
Essential Fish Habitat

Description and Identiification for MAFMC Managed Species, Dover, DE.

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.

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.

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 1998. Essential Fish
Habitat Amendment. New

England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, MA. Oct. 1998. 388 pps
plus appendices.

Schiel, D.R., and M.S. Foster. 1992. "Restoring Kelp Forests." Chapter
7. *In*, G.W. Thayer, Ed., *Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment.*
Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD. Pp.279-342.

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.

Wiens, H. J. 1962. *Atoll environment and ecology*. Yale University
Press, New Haven. 532 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.

Zedler, J. B. 1992. "Restoring Cordgrass Marshes in Southern
California." Chapter 1. *In*, G.W.

Thayer, Ed., *Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment*, Maryland Sea
Grant College,

College Park, MD.