> **[APPENDIX G]{.underline}**

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

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

**[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 RC issues individual awards for projects.

In the Southwest 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, coral,
shoreline, and mangrove habitats in the Southwest 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.

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 as during coral reef and 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 corals or 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 the separate
FMPs for species managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and a
generic amendment for the Western 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 **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*).

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

    The Western Pacific Council manages fisheries within the exclusive
    economic zone (EEZ) around the territory of American Samoa,
    Territory of Guam, State of Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the northern
    Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Island possessions. The EFH
    amendment (WPFMC, 1998) represents the Western Pacific Fishery
    Management 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}.) by serving as a generic
    amendment to the following FMPs:

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Bottomfish and Seamount
    Groundfish** in the

    Western Pacific

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Pelagic Fishery** in the Western
    Pacific

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Crustacean Fishery** in the
    Western Pacific

-   Fishery Management Plan for the **Precious Coral Fishery** in the
    Western Pacific

    The comprehensive EFH document (WPFMC 1998) amends the four FMPs of
    the Western Pacific. EFH is identified and described based on areas
    where various life phases of 65 species occur. These species (local
    name) are bottomfish (lehi, *Aphareus rutilans*; uku, *Aprion
    virescens*; giant trevally, *Caranx ignobilis*; black trevally,
    *Caranx lugubris*; blacktip grouper, *Epinephelus fasciatus*;
    hapupuu, *Epinephelus quernus*; red snapper (ehu), *Etelis
    carbunculus*; red snapper (onaga), *Etelis coruscans*; ambon
    emperor, *Lethrinus amboinensis*; redgill emperor, *Lethrinus
    rubrioperculatus*; blueline snapper (taape), *Lutjanus kasmira*;
    yellowtail kalekale, *Pristipomoides auricilla*; pink snapper
    (opakapaka), *P. filamentosus*; yelloweye opakapaka, *P.
    flavipinnis*; pink snapper (kalekale), *P. sieboldii*; snapper
    (gindai), *P. zonatus*; thicklip trevally, *Pseudocaranx dentex*,
    amberjack, *Seriola dumerili*; lunartail grouper, *Variola louti*),
    seamount groundfish (alfonsin, *Beryx splendens*;
    ratfish/butterfish, *Hyperoglyphe japonica*; armorhead,
    *Pseudopentaceros richardsoni*), pelagic species (mahimahi,
    *Coryphaena spp.*; wahoo, *Acanthocybium solandri*; Indo-Pacific
    blue marlin/black marlin, *Makaira nigrocans/M. Indica*; striped
    marlin, *Tetrapurus audax*; shortbill spearfish, *T.
    angustirostris*; sailfish, *Istiophorus platypterus*; swordfish,
    *Xiphias gladius*; moonfish, *Lampris* spp.; oilfishes, *family
    Gempylidae*; pomfret, *Bramidae*; oceanic sharks, *Alopiidae*,
    *Carcharinidae, Lamnidae, Sphyrnidae*; albacore, *Thunnus alalunga;*
    bigeye tuna, *T. obesus*; yellowfin tuna, *T. albacares*; northern
    bluefin tuna, *T. thynnus*; skipjack tuna, *Katsuwonus pelamis*;
    kawakawa, *Euthynnus affinis*; dogtooth tuna, *Gymnosarda unicolor*;
    other tuna relatives, *Auxis* spp., *Scomber* spp., *Allothunnus*
    spp.), crustaceans (spiny lobster, *Panulirus spp.*; Hawaiian spiny
    lobster, *Panulirus marginatus;* ridgeback slipper lobster,
    *Scyllaridae sp.*; Chinese skipper lobster, *Parribacus antarticus;*
    Kona crab, *Ranina ranina*), and precious corals (pink coral,
    *Corallium secundum*; red coral, *C. regale;* pink coral, *C.
    laauense;* Midway deepsea coral, *Corallium sp nov.;* gold coral,
    *Gerardia sp., Narella sp., Calyptrophora sp., Callogorgia
    gilberti;* bamboo coral, *Lepidisis olapa, Acanella sp.;* black
    coral, *Antipathes dichotoma, A. grandis, A. ulex*).

    **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 and Western Pacific regions. 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 and Western Pacific
    regions.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **PACIFIC**                                     

  Fishery Management Plan Species Managed Under   Reason for Inclusion
                          FMP                     

  Pacific Coast FMP for   23 species/life stages  Species/life stages
  Groundfish              including: leopard and  identified within the
                          soupfin shark, spiny    Estuarine Composite EFH
                          dogfish, California     and most likely to be
                          skate, ratfish,         found in CRP project
                          Lingcod, Cabezon, kelp  areas
                          greenling, Pacific cod, 
                          Pacific whiting,        
                          sablefish, brown,       
                          Calico, California,     
                          copper, kelp, and       
                          quillback rockfish,     
                          bocaccio, English and   
                          Rex sole, Pacific       
                          sanddab, and Starry     
                          flounder                

  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
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **WESTERN PACIFIC**                             

  Fishery Management Plan Species Managed Under   Reason for Exclusion
                          FMP                     

  Western Pacific FMP for 7 species/life stages:  Species/life stages may
  Bottomfish and Seamount giant trevally,         be found in near-shore,
  Fisheries Groundfish    blacktip grouper, sea   coastal areas, SAV, and
                          bass, ambon emperor,    coral reefs
                          blueline snapper,       
                          thicklip trevally,      
                          lunartail grouper       

  Western Pacific FMP for 6 species/life stages:  Species/life stages may
  Pelagic Fisheries       mahimahi, wahoo,        be found in coastal
                          sailfish,               areas.
                          *Carcharinidae spp*,    
                          albacore, and *Auxis    
                          spp*.                   

  Western Pacific FMPs    3 species of black      Shallow water corals
  for Precious Coral      coral.                  found at depths between
  Fisheries                                       30-100 m.

  Western Pacific FMP for 2 species/life stages:  Found in coastal areas
  Crustacean Fisheries    spiny lobster, kona     and shorelines. Spiny
                          crab                    lobster in association
                                                  with coral reefs.
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

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

  ----------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------
  **PACIFIC**                                      

  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             
  ----------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------

+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **WESTERN PACIFIC**  |                       |                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Fishery Management   | Species Managed Under | Reason for Exclusion |
| Plan                 | FMP                   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Western Pacific FMP  | 15 species/life       | Found on steep       |
| for Bottomfish and   | stages: including     | slopes of deepwater  |
| Seamount Groundfish  | snappers, trevallys,  | banks, depths        |
|                      | groupers, emperors,   | approximately 35 m   |
|                      | amberjacks,           | to 330 m             |
|                      | alfonsins, ratfish,   |                      |
|                      | armorheads            |                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Western Pacific FMP  | 21 species/life       | Found in             |
| for Pelagic          | stages: including     | near-surface waters  |
| Fisheries            | marlins, spearfishes, | far from shore,      |
|                      | swordfishes, sharks,  | moving freely in the |
|                      | tunas, kawakawas,     | oceanic environment  |
|                      | moonfishes,           |                      |
|                      | oilfishes, pomfrets   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Western Pacific FMPs | 9 species/life        | Deepwater corals     |
| for Precious Coral   | stages: pink corals,  | found at depths      |
| Fisheries            | red corals, gold      | between 350-1500 m.  |
|                      | corals, bamboo corals |                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Western Pacific FMP  | Hawaiian spiny        | Spiny lobster (not   |
| for Crustacean       | lobster & life stages | in association with  |
| Fisheries            | Kona crab & life      | corals) found at     |
|                      | stages                | depths between       |
|                      |                       | 10-185 m.            |
|                      |                       |                      |
|                      |                       | Kona crab found at   |
|                      |                       | depths between       |
|                      |                       | 24-225 m.            |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[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 near shore 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.

In the Western Pacific, the EFH determination is based on species
distribution maps, habitat descriptions, and habitat association tables
in Appendices 3 and 4 in the EFH Amendment (WPFMC 1998). The species
distribution maps show EFH and habitat areas of particular concern
(HAPC) for each life stage in the Hawaiian Islands, American Soma, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. Habitat distribution tables describe
the duration, diet, distribution and location of each life stage in the
water column and bottom habitat.

The following discussions of estuarine and marine environments,
excerpted from the CRP EA (2001), complement the EFH descriptions of the
Pacific and Western Pacific 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 submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) beds, marshes, oyster reefs, riparian areas, kelp beds,
and mangroves. 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 vegetation (marshes and mangroves). 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, 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. Freshwater juvenile chinook salmon
primarily inhabit pools and stream margins, particularly undercut banks
and behind large woody debris (LWD). As adults, chinook salmon 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 near shore 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,
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. In the Southeast region, coastal habitats such as
reefs, SAV, and mangroves are all interconnected physically, chemically,
and biologically providing mutual support and operating as one system
(SAFMC 1998).

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

Coastal areas contain EFH for a number of species managed by the Pacific
Council. 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. 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 near shore areas (PFMC
1998a). Small jack mackerel are also abundant near the coast in the
Southern California Bight. Larger fish are found further north up to the
Gulf of Alaska. Pacific sardines are also 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. Coastal areas such as estuaries, bays, and
inshore areas are also EFH for a number of estuarine groundfish. One
species is the leopard shark which uses estuaries and shallow coastal
waters as pupping and feeding/rearing grounds (EFH Core Team 1998).
Leopard shark pups can also be found in and just beyond the surf zone in
areas of southern California, such as Santa Monica Bay. Female soupfin
sharks may occur in waters as shallow as two meters and are most
commonly found in San Francisco Bay, Tomales Bay, and inshore areas in
southern California which are also used as pupping grounds. Other
groundfish species found in intertidal and inshore areas include the
spiny dogfish, California skate, lingcod, cabezon, black rockfish,
California rockfish, kelp rockfish, and quillback rockfish. These
species may also occur in estuaries and bays along with ratfish, kelp
greenling, Pacific cod, Pacific whiting, bocaccio, brown rockfish,
calico rockfish, copper rockfish, English sole, Pacific sanddab, rex
sole, and starry flounder. Most species use estuaries and sheltered
inshore bays as spawning grounds and nursery areas.

Coastal areas also contain EFH for a number of species managed by the
Western Pacific Council. Bottomfish species include the giant
trevally/jack, blacktip grouper, ambon emperor, blueline snapper,
thicklip trevally, and lunartail grouper (WPFMC 1998). The giant
trevally is one of the most abundant species of jacks found in Hawaii
(Sudekum *et al*. 1991). Juvenile species of the giant trevallys and
thicklip trevallys are usually found in near-shore and estuarine waters
(Lewis *et al*. 1983) as well as in small schools over sandy inshore
reef flats (Myers 1991). The blacktip grouper is also abundant in
shallow waters and is an important food fish throughout its geographic
range. Juvenile blueline snapper are also known to utilize shallow water
habitats such as seaward reefs and sea-grass beds as nursery habitat
(Myers 1991). Juvenile life stages of lunartail groupers are also found
in shallow water habitats within sea-grass beds and tide pools. Coastal
pelagic species such as dolphinfish (mahimahi), sailfish, albacore, and
some shark and tuna species may also be found in coastal areas. The
dolphinfish is primarily an ocean fish but is occasionally found in
estuaries and harbors (Palko *et al*. 1982). Albacore larvae are also
highly concentrated within coastal waters near islands. Some species of
sharks in different families are found in coastal areas as well. Most
belong to the family of requiem sharks (*Carcharhinidae spp*.) that
occur in in-shore waters but are not under management by the Western
Pacific Council. Adult spiny lobsters are typically found in coastal
areas on rocky substrate in well-protected areas. In the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), they inhabit shallow waters of less than 18 m.
Kona crabs also occur in the NWHI on sandy bottom habitat at depths from
24 to 115 m.

*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:*

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 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).

*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 near shore habitats (PFMC 1999). A number of groundfish
species are also found in near shore habitats with SAV. These include
adult lingcod, whose small prey fish feed on SAV; cabezon, adult
bocaccio, brown rockfish, young quillback rockfish, and English sole.

In the Western Pacific, some species of bottomfish are associated with
SAV. These include the juvenile blacktip grouper and seabass, ambon
emperor, blueline snapper, and lunartail grouper. Juvenile blueline
snapper use seagrass beds as nursery habitat (Myers 1991).

*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. Frames are then dropped to the bottom of
the restoration site where seagrass roots can then anchor new shoots in
place. This method minimizes potential impacts to bottom sediment from
divers as well as impacts to SAV plants from handling and storage. In
order to avoid damage to transplanted SAV plants, projects may also be
required to complete transplanting activities within 24 hours of
collection from donor beds. Donor beds should be left with enough plants
to allow for recolonization. Plants should also be gathered through
careful field collection to minimize damage to existing beds.

5\. Mangroves

Mangroves are woody plant communities that develop in sheltered tropical
and subtropical coastal estuarine environments. Mangroves are adapted to
survive in very saline, waterlogged, reduced soils that are often poorly
consolidated and subject to rapid change. Mangrove communities, like
salt marshes, facilitate much nutrient cycling, trapping nutrient-rich
sediments and maintaining high rates of organic matter fixation
(Cintron-Molero 1992). Mangroves also provide important shelter for
larval fish and crustaceans, and contribute detritus and dissolved
organic carbon to estuarine food webs (Heald 1969; Odum, 1971; Twilley
1982). Mangrove ecosystems, like all ecosystems, are coupled to other
systems such as seagrass beds and coral reefs, supporting species of
fish, shrimp, and birds. Mangroves are highly productive structures. A
significant amount of the net production is incorporated into woody
tissues and roots. A large proportion is also used to produce leaves and
fruits, allowing more energy to be incorporated into the food web. This
results in an abundance of shellfish and finfish in mangrove areas, as
well as a diversity and abundance of other associated fauna.

*Description of Habitat (EFH) Affected:*

In the Western Pacific, the ambon emperor fish may be found inhabiting
mangrove swamps.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

Mangrove restoration may involve invasive species removal and
revegetation of mangrove species. 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. Invasive species removal is performed using similar
methods used in shoreline restoration from above.

In order to minimize the potential impacts from invasive species removal
activities, certain precautions are taken. Ingress and egress routes for
volunteers 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.

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 and Gulf
Coasts, 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 southern California waters, schools of jack mackerel may be found
around artificial reefs (PFMC 1998a). Artificial reefs are also EFH for
a number of groundfish including young and adult bocaccio, brown
rockfish, and copper rockfish.

*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
stationary benthic organisms in the area which may be buried during the
placement of reef material. Fish may be temporarily displaced. 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 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. In addition,
shell should only be obtained from shucking houses where no impacts to
habitat were made during shell acquisition. Benthic productivity should
also be determined prior to any restoration activities (PFMC, 1999).
Areas of high productivity should be avoided. Monitoring should also be
performed upon completion to determine the effectiveness of the
structures in actually increasing productivity of targeted species.

2\. Coral Reefs

Coral reefs are wave resistant structures made of calcium carbonate
secreted by, and harboring plants and animals in shallow tropical seas.
While most of the reef environment is depositional, the seaward growing
portion of the reef is essential for the survival and maintenance of the
rest of the reef system (Wiens 1962; Guilcher 1987). Coral reefs grow in
oceanic waters that are low in nutrients. They contain symbiotic algae
(zooxanthellae), which live in the coral tissues and produce food and
take up nutrients excreted by the coral animal (Maragos 1992). Coral
reefs have been called the "rainforests of the sea" (US Coral Reef Task
Force 2000) because of their high level of biodiversity and
productivity, providing habitat for thousands of species of fish and
shellfish and hundreds of species of corals, algae, sponges,
echinoderms, and many other groups of organisms. Coral reef systems
provide food, shelter, breeding, and growth areas for many reef and
non-reef organisms. Coral reefs are also linked to mangroves and SAV
where these systems occur in close proximity to one another (Maragos
1992). A number of rare or endangered species inhabit or use coral reef
environments. Hardbottoms constitute a group of communities
characterized by a thin veneer of live corals and other biota overlying
associated sediment types. They are usually of low relief and occur on
the continental shelf and may be associated with relict reefs.

*Description of Habitats (EFH) Affected:*

A number of species managed by the Western Pacific may be found in coral
reef habitat. Bottomfish such as the blacktip grouper, ambon emperor,
blueline snapper and lunartail grouper are all found near coral reefs at
different life stages. Blacktip groupers may inhabit coral reefs to a
depth of 160 m for a number of years. Spiny lobsters are typically found
in association with coral reefs that provide shelter as well as a
diverse supply of food items (Pitcher 1993). The precious corals managed
by the Western Pacific Council exist in American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii,
and the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as other U.S. possessions in
the Pacific, but very little is known about their distribution (WPFMC
1998). In Hawaii, six known beds of pink, gold, and bamboo corals are
located off Keahole Point, Makapuu, Kaena Point, between Nihoa and
Necker Islands, Brooks Bank, and at the 180 Fathom Bank. These deep
water corals occur at depths between 350-450 m and 1,000-1,500 m.
Shallow water corals, such as black corals, are found between 30 and 100
m (Grigg 1993). In Hawaii, *Antipathes dichotoma* species accounts for
90% of the commercial harvest of black coral (Oishi 1990). Although
different species of coral inhabit distinct depth zones, their habitat
requirements are strikingly similar. Solid substrates, strong currents,
and light are the most important factors for coral survival.

*Potential impacts from restoration activities:*

The restoration of coral reefs requires direct contact of volunteer
divers with the aquatic environment. Potential impacts include
accidental contact with already-damaged corals by divers, equipment, and
anchoring boats. Divers may also disturb bottom sediment with fins,
causing turbidity problems. The use of healthy, intact coral sites as
donor sites increases the potential for damage to the existing corals by
transplanting methods and the divers themselves.

To minimize potential impacts, divers are required to be skilled in the
use of standard diving principles. These principles include rules such
as not touching any coral tissue, knowing the location of all equipment,
and staying off the bottom in sediment-laden areas. Prior to restoration
activities, divers are also trained in coral biology, reef ecology, and
restoration methods. During transplant, coral are stored in such a way
to minimize movement to prevent damage to cores.

3\. 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 near shore 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 schools under floating kelp canopies (PFMC
1998a). A number of groundfish species can also be found in kelp beds.
These include the leopard shark, cabezon, kelp greenling, black
rockfish, bocaccio, brown rockfish, copper rockfish, kelp rockfish, and
quillback rockfish (EFH Core Team 1998). Kelp beds are also feeding
grounds for the small prey fish of lingcod. Juvenile black fish live on
both the canopy and bottom of kelp beds in Monterey Bay, and are often
associated with kelp holdfasts and sporophylls.

*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
watersheds habitat-forming processes to maintain the biophysical
structure and function of aquatic systems. 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. Most CRP projects are part
of regional restoration efforts.

The RC has developed additional measures to mitigate possible impacts of
CRP activities on EFH in the Pacific and Western Pacific. 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 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.

e\. Ingress/egress areas - Temporary access pathways will be established
prior to restoration

activities to minimize adverse impacts from project implementation.

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, appropriate 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 and Western Pacific Councils.

5\. Monitoring

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

6\. Mitigation for Potential Impacts

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

7\. Herbicide Application Controls

Use of herbicides in project areas will be conducted according to
established protocols. Such protocols will include information and
guidelines for appropriate use, timing, amounts, application methods,
and safety procedures relevant to the herbicide application. For
example,

\- Only Federal, state, and locally approved herbicides that are
non-toxic to fish may be used,

\- Herbicide applications should have a six-hour contact time prior to
rain,

\- Herbicides should never be applied during periods of wind (greater
than 10 mph) or rain,

\- Herbicides should be directly applied using spray bottles or garden
sprayers, and

\- If removal takes place in the aquatic environment, appropriate
herbicides such as Rodeo^®^

should be used, but only if stumps are at least 1 foot above the water
line (MRC, 1998).

8\. 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.

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

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

Crone, R. A. and C. E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon,
*Oncorhynchus kisutch*, in Sashin Creek, southeastern Alaska. Fish.
Bull., U.S., 74(4):897-923.

Cintron-Molero, G. 1992. "Restoring Mangrove Systems." Chapter 6. *In*,
G. W. Thayer, Ed., *Restoring*

*the Nation's Marine Environment*. Maryland Sea Grant College, College
Park, MD. Pp. 223-277.

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)

Grigg, R.W. 1993. Precious coral fisheries of Hawaii and the U.S.
Pacific Islands. Mar Fish Rev 55(2):

50-60.

Guilcher, A. 1987. *Coral reef geomorphology*. Wiley, New York. 228 pp.

Heald, E. J. 1969. The production of organic detritus in a south Florida
estuary. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Florida.

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.

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.

Lewis A.D., L.B. Chapman, A. Sesewa. 1983. Biological notes on coastal
pelagic fishes in Fiji. Fiji:

Fisheries Division (MAF). Technical report no. 4.

Maragos, J. E. 1992. Restoring Coral Reefs with Emphasis on Pacific
Reefs. Chapter 5. *In*,

G.W. Thayer, Ed., *Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment*, Maryland
Sea Grant College, College Park, MD. Pp. 141-221.

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

Myers, R.F. 1991. *Micronesian reef fishes*. Barrigada, Guam: Coral
Graphics.

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.

Odum, W. E. 1971. Pathways of energy flow in a south Florida estuary.
University of Miami Sea Grant Bulletin 7. 162 pp.

Oishi, F.G. 1990. Black coral harvesting and marketing activities in
Hawaii - 1990. Honolulu: DAR,

Dept. of Land and Natural Resources.

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)

Palko, B.J. and G.L. Beardsley, *et al*. 1982. Synopsis of the
biological data on dolphin-fishes,

*Coryphaena hippurus* Linnaeus and *Coryphaena equiselis* Linnaeus.
Seattle: NOAA/NMFS. NOAA Technical Report No. NMFS circular 443; FAO
Fisheries Synopsis No. 130.

Pitcher, R.C. 1993. Spiny lobster. In: Wright, A., Hill, L, editors.
Near shore marine resources of the

South Pacific. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. p 539-607.

Sudekum, A.E., J.D. Parrish, R.L. Radtke, S. Ralston. 1991. Life history
and ecology of large jacks in

undisturbed, shallow, oceanic communities. Fish Bull (89): 492-513.

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.

Twilley, R. R. 1982. Litter dynamics and organic carbon exchange in
black mangrove (*Avicennia germinans*) basin forests in a southwest
Florida estuary. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 2000. National Action Plan to Conserve Coral
Reefs. Washington

DC\.

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.

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). 1998. Appendix 3 -
Essential Fish Habitat

Species Descriptions. Excerpted from: Magnuson-Stevens Act Definitions
and Required Provisions. Western Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Honolulu, HI. Sep. 1998. pp. A3-1 to A3-258.

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