## APPENDIX J

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

Number range CHAPTER**Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Programmatic
Consultation between the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest
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
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 Northwest region through the NOAA Restoration Center's
(RC) Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP) to restore habitat for
living marine resources. The Northwest region includes areas managed by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council including Washington, Oregon, and
anadromous fish habitats in Idaho.

**[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, or 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 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 Northwest region, 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, shellfish, submerged aquatic vegetation, and shoreline
habitats in the Northwest 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 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. Physical removal techniques are
preferred, but chemical treatments may be necessary in specific cases.
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 as during 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 damaged kelp beds by divers or
equipment, disruption of bottom sediment from diving fins, and impacts
resulting from the transplanting of 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 the separate
FMPs for species managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

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

The Pacific Council has authority over the fisheries in the Pacific
Ocean seaward of the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho. The individual FMPs addressing EFH for managed species in these
areas represent the 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** in the Pacific

-   Fishery Management Plan for **Coastal Pelagic Species** in the
    Pacific

-   Fishery Management Plan for **Salmon** in the Pacific

    EFH is identified and described based on areas where various life
    stages of 90 managed species commonly occur. These include 82
    species of groundfish (Butter sole, *Isopsetta isolepis*; Flag
    rockfish, *Sebastes rubrivinctus*; Curlfin sole, *Pleuronichthys
    decurrens*; Gopher rockfish, *Sebastes carnatus*; Dover sole,
    *Microstomus pacificus*; Grass rockfish, *Sebastes rastrelliger*;
    English sole, *Parophrys vetulus*; Greenblotched rockfish,
    *Sebastes*; Flathead sole, *Hippoglossoides elassodon*; Greenspotted
    rockfish, *Sebastes chlorostictus*; Pacific sanddab,
    *Citharichthys*; Greenstriped rockfish, *Sebastes elongatus*;
    Petrale sole, *Eopsetta jordani*; Harlequin rockfish, *Sebastes
    variegatus*; Rex sole, *Glyptocephalus zachirus*; Honeycomb
    rockfish, *Sebastes umbrosus*; Rock sole, *Lepidopsetta bilineata*;
    Kelp rockfish, *Sebastes atrovirens*; Sand sole, *Psettichthys
    melanostictus*; Mexican rockfish, *Sebastes macdonaldi*; Starry
    flounder, *Platichthys stellatus*; Olive rockfish, *Sebastes;*
    Arrowtooth flounder, *Atheresthes stomias*; Pink rockfish, *Sebastes
    eos*; Ratfish, *Hydrolagus colliei*; Quillback rockfish, *Sebastes
    maliger*; Finescale codling, *Antimora microlepis;* Redbanded
    rockfish, *Sebastes* ; Pacific rattail, *Coryphaenoides acrolepis*;
    Redstripe rockfish, *Sebastes*; Leopard shark, *Triakis
    semifasciata*; Rosethorn rockfish, *Sebastes helvomaculatus*;
    Soupfin shark, *Galeorhinus zyopterus*; Rosy rockfish, *Sebastes
    rosaceus;* Spiny dogfish, *Squalus acanthias;* Rougheye rockfish,
    *Sebastes* ; Big skate, *Raja binoculata;* Sharpchin rockfish,
    *Sebastes*; Longnose skate, *Raja rhina*; California Skate, *Raja
    inornata*; Shortraker rockfish, *Sebastes borealis;* Pacific ocean
    perch, *Sebastes alutus*; Silvergrey rockfish, *Sebastes;*
    Shortbelly rockfish, *Sebastes jordani*; Speckled rockfish,
    *Sebastes ovalis*; Widow rockfish, *Sebastes entomelas*; Splitnose
    rockfish, *Sebastes diploproa*; Aurora rockfish, *Sebastes aurora*;
    Squarespot rockfish, *Sebastes hopkinsi*; Bank rockfish, *Sebastes
    rufus;* Starry rockfish, *Sebastes constellatus;* Black rockfish,
    *Sebastes melanops*; Stripetail rockfish, *Sebastes saxicola;*
    Black-and-yellow rockfish, *Sebastes chrysomelas*; Tiger rockfish,
    *Sebastes nigrocinctus*; Blackgill rockfish, *Sebastes
    melanostomus*; Treefish, *Sebastes serriceps*; Blue rockfish,
    *Sebastes mystinus*; Vermilion rockfish, *Sebastes*; Bocaccio,
    *Sebastes paucispinis*; Yelloweye rockfish, *Sebastes ruberrimus*;
    Bronzespotted rockfish, *Sebastes gilli*; Yellowmouth rockfish,
    *Sebastes reedi;* Brown rockfish, *Sebastes auriculatus*; Yellowtail
    rockfish, *Sebastes flavidus*; Calico rockfish, *Sebastes dallii;*
    Longspine Thornyhead, *Sebastolobus altivelis*; California rockfish,
    *Scorpena guttatta;* Shortspine Thornyhead, *Sebastolobus
    alascanus;* Canary rockfish, *Sebastes pinniger*; Cabezon,
    *Scorpaenichthys marmoratus*; Chilipepper, *Sebastes goodei*; Kelp
    greenling, *Hexagrammos decagrammus*; China rockfish, *Sebastes
    nebulosus;* Lingcod, *Ophiodon elongatus*; Copper rockfish,
    *Sebastes caurinus*; Pacific cod, *Gadus macrocephalus*; Cowcod
    rockfish, *Sebastes levis*; Pacific whiting, *Merluccius productus;*
    Darkblotched rockfish, *Sebastes crameri*; Sablefish, *Anoplopoma
    fimbria*; Dusky rockfish, *Sebastes ciliatus*), five coastal pelagic
    species (4 finfish: Pacific sardine, *Sardinops sagax*; Pacific
    (chub) mackerel, *Scomber japonicus*; northern anchovy, *Engraulis
    mordax*, Jack mackerel, *Trachurus symmetricus*; and 1 invertebrate:
    market squid, *Loligo opalescens*), and three species of salmon
    (chinook, *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*; coho, *Oncohynchus kisutch;*
    pink, *Oncorhynchus gorbuscha*).

    **Management of Highly Migratory Species**

    Highly migratory species in the Pacific Ocean include tunas,
    swordfish, marlins, sailfish, oceanic sharks, and others. The
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act gives plan
    development

    responsibility for these species to the councils in the Pacific
    area. Currently, the councils in the Pacific area and the NMFS are
    discussing the need for a fishery management plan for all U.S.
    waters in the Pacific and ways to develop such a plan and implement
    a management process which involves all three councils. Management
    of highly migratory species in currently addressed in separate FMPs
    for each council.

    The following sections address EFH for managed species that may be
    encountered during community-based restoration projects in the
    Pacific. 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), species managed under each
    FMP, and the reasons for *inclusion* under the programmatic
    Environmental Assessment (EA) in the Pacific.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **PACIFIC REGION**                              

  Fishery Management Plan Species Managed Under   Reason for Inclusion
                          FMP                     

  Pacific Coast FMP for   23 species/life stages: Species/life stages
  Groundfish              predominantly shark,    identified within the
                          rockfish, sole, and     Estuarine Composite EFH
                          flounder                and most likely to be
                                                  found in CRP project
                                                  areas

  Pacific Coast FMP for   4 finfish species/life  Species/life stages
  Coastal Pelagic Species stages: Pacific         found in estuaries or
                          sardine, Pacific (chub) near river mouths,
                          mackerel, northern      around kelp beds, off
                          anchovy, jack mackerel, sandy beaches, and in
                          1 invertebrate: market  near shore waters
                          squid                   

  Pacific Coast FMP for   3 species/life stages:  Species/life stages
  Salmon                  chinook, coho, pink     found in estuary or
                                                  near river mouths,
                                                  riverine, and
                                                  near-shore waters
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Table 2. Fishery Management Plan (FMP), species managed under FMP, and
the reasons for *exclusion* under the programmatic Environmental
Assessment (EA) in the Pacific region.

  ----------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------
  **PACIFIC REGION**                               

  Fishery Management Plan Species Managed Under    Reason for Exclusion
                          FMP                      

  Pacific Coast FMP for   59 species/life stages:  Found outside the
  Groundfish              Big skate, longnose      Estuarine Composite EFH
                          skate, finescale         in rocky shelf,
                          codling, Pacific         non-rocky shelf,
                          rattail, 41 species of   canyon, continental
                          rockfish, Pacific ocean  slope/basin, neritic,
                          perch, arrowtooth        and oceanic composites
                          flounder, 7 species of   
                          sole, chilipepper,       
                          cowcod, longspine        
                          thornyhead, shortspine,  
                          and treefish             
  ----------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------

**[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. For the Pacific salmon fishery, EFH is
identified using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic units as well
as habitat association tables and life history descriptions of each life
stage (PFMC, 1999). This information is provided in Appendix A of
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC, 1999). These areas
encompass all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently
viable water bodies and most of the habitat historically accessible to
salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. In estuarine and
marine areas, EFH for Pacific salmon extends from the nearshore and
tidal submerged environments within state waters out to the full extent
of the EEZ.

For the Pacific coast groundfish fishery, EFH descriptions are grouped
into seven units called "composite" EFHs which focus on the ecological
relationships among species and between the species and their habitats
(PFMC, 1998b). These seven habitats include "estuarine", "rocky shelf",
"non-rocky shelf", "canyon", "continental slope", "neritic zone", and
"oceanic zone". The EFH determination is based on a series of
presence/absence tables for all 82 species/life stages within each
composite EFH in Section 11.5 of the West Coast Groundfish Amendment.
Life history descriptions and maps showing species distributions are
available in the Appendix (EFH Core Team, 1998).

The EFH designation for coastal pelagic species groups the four finfish
and the market squid into one complex due to similarities in their life
histories and habitat requirements. EFH is based upon a thermal range
bordered within the geographic area where a coastal pelagic species
occurs at any life stage, where the species has occurred historically
during periods of similar environmental conditions, or where
environmental conditions do not preclude colonization by the coastal
pelagic species (PFMC, 1998a). Habitat/life history descriptions for
each species can be found in Section 6.0 of the Description and
Identification of EFH for the Coastal Pelagic Species FMP.

The following discussions of estuarine and marine environments,
excerpted from the CRP EA (2001), complement the EFH descriptions of the
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. Many 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, and kelp beds. 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. 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 marsh vegetation. The restoration of
estuarine environments typically include similar types of activities
such as removal of invasive species, revegetation, removal of intertidal
fill and riprap, 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:*

In the Pacific, EFH for managed salmon species include many areas along
riparian zones where CRP projects may occur. Chinook, coho and pink
salmon spawn in stream beds in select areas such as pool tailouts, runs,
and riffles during the fall or winter (Vronskiy 1972, Burger *et al*.
1985, Healey 1991). Water quality within these areas is particularly
important during larval stages and must be non-toxic, of suitable
temperature, and contain an adequate supply of dissolved oxygen to
ensure egg survival (PFMC, 1999). Coho larvae (alevins) also inhabit
streambeds during the winter and spring and may be found in rivers,
streams, and lakes as adults. Chinook salmon may be separated into two
distinct races, stream-type and ocean-type fish, because of the
variation in their life history (Gilbert 1912, Healey 1983). Stream-type
fish have long freshwater residence as juveniles, migrate rapidly to
oceanic habitats, and spawn back in freshwater in spring or summer.
Freshwater juvenile chinook salmon primarily inhabit pools and stream
margins, particularly undercut banks and behind large woody debris
(LWD). Ocean-type fish have short residency in freshwater and extensive
estuarine residence. Adult show considerable freshwater variation in the
month of freshwater entry. Once adult Chinook return to freshwater, they
can be found in large, deep, low velocity pools with abundant LWD. These
areas serve as refuge from high river temperatures and predators as well
as resting sites prior to sexual maturation and spawning. (PFMC, 1999).
Pink salmon are often found in the same river reaches and habitats as
chinook but migrate to oceanic and nearshore waters as adults.

*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.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

Coastal areas contain EFH for a number of species managed by the Pacific
Council. About 23 species of groundfish are found in coastal waters.
Many of these species have designated EFH in the estuarine waters of
Puget Sound. Spiny dogfish occur from the surface and intertidal areas
to greater depths and are common in estuaries (EFH Core Team, 1998).
Adult females are most abundant during the spring when they move inshore
to shallow waters to release their young. Ratfish can be found in Puget
Sound from early winter to late spring during feeding and mating. They
often occur in less than 10 m of water depending on the time of day and
season. Adults, spawning adults, and eggs of lingcod are common to Puget
Sound, Hood Canal, and Skagit Bay. Larvae is also common in nearshore
areas of most other Washington estuaries as well was Coos Bay in Oregon.
Juvenile and adult life stages of cabezon can also be found in shallow
water bays and estuarine areas. All life stages of kelp greenling and
starry flounder are found in estuarine areas. Several species of
rockfish occur in estuarine areas during their juvenile and adult life
stages. These include black, brown, copper, and quillback rockfish that
are usually found near SAV and kelp beds. Other groundfish species that
may be found in estuarine areas include Pacific cod, Pacific whitiing,
sablefish, bocaccio, English sole, Pacific sanddab, and the rex sole
which utilize near-shore nursery areas.

A number of coastal pelagic species are also found within coastal areas.
These include juvenile and adult life stages of Pacific mackerel which
occur off sandy beaches and in open bays, and eggs and paralarvae of
market squid which are found in shallow, semi-protected nearshore areas
(PFMC, 1998a). Small jack mackerel are also abundant near the coast in
the Southern California Bight. Pacific sardines are common along near
shore and offshore areas along the coast. Most life stages remain off
the California coast, but adults may migrate to feeding grounds off the
Pacific northwest and Canada.

Juvenile chinook, coho, and pink salmon occupy beaches and bays before
emigrating to marine waters (PFMC, 1999). Juvenile pink salmon may
remain along shorelines to feed for up to several weeks.

*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 mechanically where volunteers remove plants by
hand. Chemical methods may be used as a last resort, where volunteers
spot-treat plants individually. 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. Sedges, salt grasses, beach
grasses, and eel grasses dominate the shallow, subtidal and intertidal
habitats. 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:*

Coastal wetlands may provide rearing habitat for coho salmon. In the
summer, brackish-water estuarine areas may also be used by juvenile coho
to migrate upstream (Crone and Bond, 1976).

*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 shall 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).

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

Submerged aquatic vegetation is EFH for a number of species managed by
the Pacific Council. They provide nursing grounds for pink salmon in
estuarine and nearshore habitats (PFMC, 1999). They are also feeding
grounds for the small prey fish of adult lingcod, a Pacific groundfish
(EFH Core Team 1998). Juvenile black rockfish may inhabit intertidal
eelgrass beds from March-October in Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Adult bocaccio
are also commonly found in eelgrass beds. Young quillback and brown
rockfish may settle out to shallow, vegetated habitats such as eelgrass
beds.

*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.

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\. 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
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:*

Kelp forests are EFH for a number of coastal pelagic species managed by
the Pacific Council. Species include juvenile jack mackerel and Pacific
mackerel who travel in school under floating kelp canopies (PFMC,
1998a). West coast groundfish species such as the leopard shark and
sablefish can also be found in kelp beds (EFH Core Team, 1998). They are
also feeding grounds for the small prey fish of adult lingcod. Cabezon
are found intertidally or in shallow, subtidal areas on a variety of
habitats, often in the vicinity of kelp beds. Kelp greenling show a very
high affinity to rocky banks near dense algae or kelp beds, or in kelp
beds. Blue rockfish adults have been found in water as deep as 550 m and
show a strong affinity for kelp forests. Adult Bocaccio are also found
congregated around floating kelp beds. Other groundfish species such as
black, brown, kelp, quillback, and copper rockfish also inhabit areas
near kelp.

*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}**

Section 3.2.5.11 of the Appendix to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan
addresses potential impacts resulting from habitat restoration projects
and measures to reduce them (PFMC, 1999). These measures include having
a good understanding of the conditions in a watershed and protecting a
watershed's habitat-forming processes to maintain the biophysical
structure and function of aquatic systems, including the bay and ocean
habitat. The Pacific Council encourages habitat restoration projects
that are part of watershed or basin conservation plans and implement
monitoring activities for sustained biophysical process and function.
CRP projects are all part of regional restoration efforts.

The RC has developed measures to mitigate possible impacts of CRP
activities on EFH in the Northwest region. These recommendations 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 recommendation 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 Species Presence

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 Pacific Council.

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}**

All CRP projects benefit habitat for living marine resource. Potential
impacts to EFH will be localized, minor, and short-term in nature.
However, certain circumstances may exist where project impacts are more
than minimal and not short-term or projects cannot avoid or minimize the
adverse effects by implementing the above conservation recommendations.
In these instances, project-specific consultation will be required and
can be coordinated through the regulatory review process for federal
permits.

**[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)

Gilbert, C. H. 1912. Age at maturity of the Pacific coast salmon of the
genus Oncorhynchus. Fish Bull.,

U.S. 32:3-22.

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.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998a. Appendix D -
Description and Identification of EFH for the Coastal Pelagic Species
FMP. Amendment 8 to the Coastal Pelagic Species FMP. December 1998. Pp.
26-38.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1998b. Essential Fish
Habitat - West Coast Groundfish. Modified from: Final EA/Regulatory
Impact Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP.
October 1998. Available:
[[http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/grndfsh.pdf]{.underline}](http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/grndfsh.pdf)

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Appendix A -
Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse
Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Amendment 14
to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. August 1999.

Available:
[[http://www.pcouncil.org/]{.underline}Salmon/a14efh/efhindex.html](http://www.pcouncil.org/Salmon/a14efh/efhindex.html)

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2001. Second Draft - Fishery
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for U.S. West
Coast-Based Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species. May 2001. Available:
[[http://www.pcouncil.org/]{.underline}HMS/2draftfmp/2fmpindex.html](http://www.pcouncil.org/HMS/2draftfmp/2fmpindex.html)

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.

Vronskiy, B. B. 1972. Reproductive biology of the Kamchatka River
chinook salmon

(*Oncorhychus tshawytscha* (Walbaum)). J. Ichthyol. 12:259-273.

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.