Alaska 

Fisheries Science 

Center 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

AFSC PROCESSED REPORT 2012-06
 

Alaska Essential Fish Habitat 

Research Plan: 

A Research Plan for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center and Alaska Regional Office 

October 2012 

This report does not constitute a publication and is for information only. 

All data herein are to be considered provisional. 
This document should be cited as follows: 

Sigler, M. F., M. F. Cameron, M. P. Eagleton,C. H. Faunce, J. Heifetz, 

T. E. Helser, B. J. Laurel, M. R. Lindeberg, R. A. McConnaughey, C. H.
 

Ryer, and T. K. Wilderbuer. 2012. Alaska Essential Fish Habitat Research Plan:
 

A research plan for the National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries
 

Science Center and Alaska Regional Office. AFSC Processed Rep. 2012-06, 


21 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 17109 Pt. Lena 


Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801
 

Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 

Cover photo: Rockfish, coral, and sponge in the central Aleutian Islands (NOAA-AFSC). 
 

 

Alaska Essential Fish Habitat
 

Research Plan
 

A Research Plan for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center and Alaska Regional Office
 

By 

M. F. Sigler1, M. F. Cameron2, M. P. Eagleton3, C. H. Faunce4, J. Heifetz5, 

T. E. Helser4

, B. J. Laurel6, M. R. Lindeberg5, R. A. McConnaughey6, C. H. Ryer6, and T. K. Wilderbuer7 

1

Alaska Fisheries Science Center
 

Habitat and Ecological Process Research Program
 

17109 Pt. Lena Loop Road
 

Juneau, AK 99801
 

2

Alaska Fisheries Science Center
 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory
 

7600 Sand Point Way NE
 

Seattle WA 98115
 

3

National Marine Fisheries Service
 

Alaska Region
 

222 West 7th Ave., Rm. 517
 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7577
 

4

Alaska Fisheries Science Center
 

Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division
 

7600 Sand Point Way NE
 

Seattle WA 98115
 

5

Alaska Fisheries Science Center
 

Auke Bay Laboratories
 

17109 Pt. Lena Loop Road
 

Juneau, AK 99801
 

6

Alaska Fisheries Science Center
 

Resource Assessment and Conservation Engineering Division
 

7600 Sand Point Way NE
 

Seattle WA 98115
 

7

Alaska Fisheries Science Center
 

Resource Ecology and Fisheries Management Division
 

7600 Sand Point Way NE
 

Seattle WA 98115
 

October 2012 

 

 

 

 

 

Preface 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) mandates NOAA to 

identify habitats essential for managed species and conserve habitats from adverse effects on those 

habitats. To meet these mandates, NOAA’s research must identify habitats that contribute most to the 

survival, growth and productivity of managed fish species and determine science-based measures to 

best manage and conserve these habitats from adverse effects of human activities. The NOAA Essential 

Fish Habitat Research Implementation Plan (AFSC 2006) for Alaska guided research to meet EFH 

mandates in Alaska during the last several years. This document revises and supersedes the initial 

Implementation Plan (AFSC 2006), and similar to the first plan is expected to guide the next several 

years of EFH research. The revision process began with a coordination meeting between Alaska Region 

habitat managers and Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) habitat scientists to determine the scope of 

the revised EFH research plan with a smaller group of 11 AFSC and Alaska Region staff subsequently 

completing the revision. 

iii

 

 

Contents 

Preface ..........................................................................................................................................................iii
 

Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Research Priorities for the First Plan............................................................................................................. 3
 

Rationale for Revision ................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Increase the Level of EFH Information...................................................................................................... 4
 

Apply Information from EFH Studies at Regional Scales........................................................................... 5
 

Emphasize Measurement of Habitat Recovery Rates...............................................................................6
 

Geographic-based Database for Offshore Habitat Information................................................................6
 

Emphasize Habitat Blueprint Initiative...................................................................................................... 7
 

Research Priorities for the Revised Plan ....................................................................................................... 8
 

Citations ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
 

Appendix: Request for EFH Proposals......................................................................................................... 13
 

Review Schedule...................................................................................................................................... 13
 

Proposal Rating ....................................................................................................................................... 13
 

v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) mandates NOAA to 

identify habitats essential for managed species and conserve habitats from adverse effects on those 

habitats (NMFS 2010). These habitats are termed “Essential Fish Habitat” or EFH, and are defined as 

“those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” 

(NMFS 2010). Further, the MSFCMA requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service when their actions may adversely affect EFH. These consultations occur for both fishing 

and non-fishing activities.1

 National Standard 2 of the MSFCMA requires NOAA Fisheries to conserve and 

manage fishery resources based upon the best available scientific information. To meet these mandates, 

NOAA’s research must identify habitats that contribute most to the survival, growth, and productivity of 

managed fish species and determine science-based measures to best manage and conserve these 

habitats from adverse effects of human activities. The NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Research 

Implementation Plan for Alaska (AFSC 2006) guided research to meet EFH mandates in Alaska during the 

last several years. This document revises and supersedes the initial Implementation Plan (AFSC 2006) 

and similar to the first plan is expected to guide the next several years of EFH research. 

The revision process began with a coordination meeting between Alaska Region habitat managers and 

AFSC habitat scientists in September 2010, which included a goal to determine the scope of the revised 

EFH research plan. The previous plan had focused on allocation of EFH funds, which while a major 

component, does not cover all EFH research conducted by the AFSC. The group recommended that the 

revised plan set priorities for all EFH research, which this plan does. 

A smaller group of 11 AFSC and Alaska Region staff subsequently met during 2011 to revise the first EFH 

research plan. The group consisted of experienced habitat scientists and managers, as well as members 

of the AFSC’s Habitat and Ecological Processes Research (HEPR) Team. The HEPR Program was 

established in 2005, consists of a Program leader and a HEPR Team with team members from each 

division of the AFSC and is tasked with facilitating EFH research. 

The review was based on the group’s EFH research and stock assessment experience, the 2006 EFH 

research plan and four recent documents: 1) the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan, 

which identified approaches for improving habitat science (NMFS 2010); 2) the AFSC science plan, which 

identified habitat research priorities (AFSC 2010); 3) the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and 

NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region 5-year EFH review, which identified habitat research priorities and also 

summarized recent EFH research (NPFMC 2010); and 4) the proceedings of the 1st National Habitat 

Assessment Workshop (Blackhart 2010). As of 2009, 17 AFSC scientists within several different research 

programs were conducting EFH research (NMFS, 2010). During 2005-2009, NOAA Fisheries spent $2.28 

M on 49 EFH projects in Alaska (NPFMC 2010). Data from these and other projects were subsequently 

1 NOAA Fisheries recommends measures to conserve EFH resulting from fishing and non-fishing activities. EFH measures conserve sensitive 

habitats and features necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For fishing activities (such as trawling and line 

gears), recommendations may include gear restrictions, time and area closures, and gear modifications. For non-fishing activities (such as oil 

and gas exploration and development, port and harbor expansions, mining, and roadway construction), recommendations may include 

measures such as in-water work timing windows, alternative site selection, onshore disposal of dredge spoils, and methods to avoid, remove 

and remediate impacts from accidental discharge of oil. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

listed in a 2009 EFH inventory document for Alaska (McConnaughey et al. 2009). This research effort 

(number of habitat scientists, annual spending) has remained approximately level since then. In 

addition, during our review, the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Blueprint was advanced by NOAA Fisheries 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Eric Schwaab (Schwaab 2011). 

This document is organized into three major sections: 1) research priorities for the first plan; 2) rationale 

for their revision; and 3) research priorities for the revised plan. In addition, an appendix describes the 

request for proposals for studies supported by EFH funding. In revising the research priorities, the 

existing research priorities mostly were kept but also were revised in several areas. Briefly, those 

revisions were to increase the level of EFH information, apply information from EFH studies at regional 

scales, emphasize measurement of habitat recovery rate, develop a geographic-based database for 

offshore habitat information. 

Summary of habitat-related research priorities 

2006 EFH Research Plan (AFSC 2006) 

1) Characterize habitat utilization and 

productivity; 

2) Assess sensitivity, impact and recovery of 

disturbed benthic habitat; 

3) Improve the habitat impacts model; 

4) Map the seafloor; and 

5) Assess coastal areas facing development. 

5-year EFH review (NPFMC 2010) 

Immediate Concerns 

1) Assess whether Bering Sea canyons 

are habitats of particular concern; 

2) Assess Bering Sea skate nursery areas 

and evaluate the need for 

designation of new HAPCs; 

3) Assess baseline conditions in the 

northern Bering Sea and Arctic. 

Ongoing Needs 

4) Improve habitat maps (especially, 

benthic habitats); 

5) Begin to develop a GIS relational 

database for habitat including spatial 

intensity of commercial fisheries; 

6) Assess the extent of the distribution 

of Primnoa spp. corals in the GOA; 

7) Evaluate importance of habitatforming living substrates to 

commercially important species, 

including juveniles; 

8) Develop a time series of the impact of 

fishing on Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 

Island and Bering Sea habitats; 

9) Evaluate effects of fishing closures on 

benthic habitats and fish production. 

10) Develop new analytical approaches 

and/or models to refine EFH 

descriptions at higher levels. 

Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (NMFS 2010) 

1) Meet Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates; 

2) Improve identification and impact assessments 

of EFH; 

3) Reduce habitat-related uncertainty in stock 

assessments and facilitate a greater number of 

advanced stock assessments. 

2010 AFSC Science Plan (AFSC 2010) 

Describe and assess the role of habitats in supporting 

healthy marine ecosystems and populations of fish, 

crab and marine mammals: 

1) Assess and evaluate the importance of specific 

habitat types for fish, crab, and marine 

mammal populations; 

2) Evaluate and forecast ecosystem impacts of 

fishing and develop mitigation tools; 

3) Evaluate and forecast impacts of human 

activities (other than fishing) on fish, crab, and 

marine mammals and their habitats.

 Habitat Blueprint (Schwaab 2011) 

1) Preserve or improve the habitat condition within a defined geographic area and on a scale 

greater than an individual restoration project; 

2) The science component should contribute to the initiative through integration of information, 

modeling, decision support, and/or monitoring. 

2
 

 

 

 

 

Research Priorities for the First Plan 

The overarching priority for the first plan was research on habitats most affected by human activities, 

including habitats with frequent human activity as well as habitats sensitive to disturbance where 

human activity is infrequent. Priority habitats included offshore habitats susceptible to disturbance from 

fishing gear and coastal habitats susceptible to disturbance from non-fishing activities. 

Coastal areas facing development - Characterization of coastal habitats susceptible to disturbance from 

non-fishing activities is a priority. These activities include oil and gas development, tidal energy, logging, 

mining, urbanization, and contaminants. The research approach includes coastal habitat mapping 

(ShoreZone) as well as field surveys of a representative subset of the mapped habitats to measure fish 

and shellfish utilization. Priority coastal habitats for study are those utilized by managed fish and 

shellfish species and facing development pressure. 

Characterize habitat utilization and productivity – This priority focuses on understanding the 

relationship between habitat type, patterns of use by species, and differences between habitats in 

productivity of managed species. The research approach supports integrating projects that combine 

measurements of habitat characteristics, habitat utilization, and habitat productivity in one study, and 

also combine laboratory experiments, controlled field manipulations, and field observations. This 

approach also includes conducting studies that would support refining the description and identification 

of EFH in Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). 

Sensitivity, impact and recovery of disturbed benthic habitat– Habitat-forming biota such as corals and 

sponges often are sensitive to human activity and may take many years to recover from disturbance. 

Some managed fish and shellfish species use this habitat for protection and camouflage. Estimates of 

habitat impacts, sensitivity, and recovery rates are necessary to understand the effects of human 

activities. Recovery rates are defined as the rate of change of impacted habitat back to un-impacted 

habitat following disturbance. Sensitivity is defined as the susceptibility of habitat to degradation. 

Habitat may be affected by fishing. In addition, coastal areas often are affected by non-fishing impacts. 

Recovery and monitoring studies of impacted coastal areas, such as log transfer facility (LTF) sites, 

offshore marine mining areas, and dredge spoil discharge areas associated with marine ports, are 

needed to determine if these sites have returned to their pre-utilization state following facility closure 

or development. 

Validate and improve habitat impacts model – A habitat impacts model has been used to estimate 

effects of fishing in Alaska, but the parameter estimates were not well resolved and had a high degree of 

uncertainty. Model validation is a priority because the habitat impacts model has played a key role in 

evaluating the effects of fishing and deciding on measures to conserve and protect habitat areas from 

fishing gear impacts (i.e., closure areas). 

Seafloor mapping – Information characterizing fish habitat and utilization in Alaska mostly is limited to 

coarse depth and habitat information (e.g., nautical charts) and utilization information from AFSC 

surveys for the adult stage of commercially important species. Missing are fine-scale depth and habitat 

information, as well as juvenile stage information, especially nearshore. Seafloor mapping is costly and 

time-consuming. The research approach is to support low-cost mapping efforts with existing sampling 

platforms (e.g., trawl survey vessels, NOAA vessels) to reduce costs. 

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale for Revision 

In revising the research priorities, the existing research priorities mostly were kept but also were revised 

in several areas. Briefly, those revisions were to increase the level of EFH information, apply information 

from EFH studies at regional scales, emphasize measurement of habitat recovery rate, develop a 

geographic-based database for offshore habitat information and emphasize Habitat Focus areas as 

defined by the Habitat Blueprint Initiative. These revisions are specifically described in the following 

subsections. The research priorities and the rationales for revision are not prioritized and their order has 

no significance. 

Increase the Level of EFH Information 

Information necessary to describe and identify EFH in FMPs is categorized into four levels based on the 

type of information available: 1) distribution (presence-absence) data; 2) habitat-specific densities; 3) 

habitat-specific growth, reproduction or survival rates; and 4) habitat-specific production rates (EFH 

Final Rule, 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1)-(4)). In addition, FMPs should explain the physical, biological, 

and chemical characteristics of EFH and, if known, how these characteristics influence the use of EFH by 

the species/life stage (EFH Final Rule 50 CFR Part 600.815(a)(1)(i)). The level of information available for 

each managed species in Alaska is listed in Table 1. 

Currently the level of EFH information for all managed Alaska species is classified as either Level 1 or no 

information is available. Where information exists, FMPs use species general distribution (EFH Level 1) 

to describe EFH in text for each life history stage, including general habitat associations, and in a map. 

Level 1 - General Distribution is defined as 95% of the population from research survey and commercial 

catch data. The Level 1 information does not incorporate specific habitat data. Another limitation is that 

this approach only provides descriptions of EFH for adult fish because only small parts of nearshore 

areas that juvenile fish commonly inhabit are sampled by AFSC surveys. 

The EFH regulations encourage Fishery Management Councils to identify EFH using the highest level of 

information available, yet currently, General Distribution (EFH Level 1) is used to describe EFH even 

when higher levels of information exist and are provided under all stock conditions. This approach was 

decided upon by NOAA Fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in 1999 and has 

carried forward to date. In Alaska, the General Distribution (EFH Level 1) is defined as 95% of the 

population for each particular life history stage. This approach was deemed risk-averse, supported by 

scientific rationale, and allows for changing oceanographic conditions, regime shifts, and the seasonality 

of migrating fish stocks (NPFMC 2010). Sufficient higher level information now is available to refine EFH 

descriptions for some species. 

The level of EFH information could be elevated to Level 2 for the adult stages of most federally managed 

species and the juvenile stage of a subset of these species through analysis of existing data. Research 

survey and commercial catch data could be analyzed together with existing habitat data to identify areas 

of highest relative abundance (Level 2) or vital rates within habitats (Level 3) for some species and 

thereby refine EFH definitions. This approach would combine existing seafloor and oceanographic data 

with species abundance data to predict preferred habitats for each species by life stage. An example of 

this approach is an analysis aimed at refining EFH descriptions for marine life stages of salmon (Echave 

et al. 2011). In addition, growth, reproduction, and mortality information is available for portions of the 

range of some species and life stages that may be sufficient to describe EFH based on Level 3 data. 

4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another example could be combining density data from trawl surveys (Lauth 2011) with Bering Sea 

habitat information (McConnaughey and Syrjala 2009; Yeung and McConnaughey 2008) to elevate the 

EFH level of Bering Sea flatfish. 

The level of EFH information could be elevated to Level 3 through collection of new data during field 

studies that address the habitat utilization and productivity research priority. These types of studies 

constitute the majority of EFH studies conducted by the AFSC. To reach this goal, future EFH studies 

should incorporate collection of habitat-specific density, growth, condition, reproduction, and survival 

information. The research priority for habitat utilization and productivity was revised by adding 

“increase the level of EFH information.” 

 Collecting higher level EFH information in habitat utilization and productivity studies often limits the 

size and number of study areas due to cost and logistics thus limiting applicability of results at regional 

scales. The need to apply these results at regional scales is addressed in the next section. 

Apply Information from EFH Studies at Regional Scales 

EFH studies are most useful if results are applicable at regional scales. Process-related EFH studies often 

are conducted in small areas over multiple years which are typically well-suited for understanding the 

complex biological and physical variables that determine fish density and survival. Generalizing these 

small-scale studies to a regional scale is challenging as these small areas may represent only a small part 

of a species range and thus limit regional scale inference. This challenge is not limited to small-scale 

studies as even large-scale studies can have limited application to a regional scale if not well-designed. 

EFH studies should follow a scientifically sound pathway to scale EFH information to apply more broadly 

and eventually at the population level. In particular, proposals should build upon previous research and 

emphasize statistical principles such as replication, representative sampling, validation and prediction, 

and inference. These study design principles determine the limits of inference for study results. The 

choice of study sites should be justified in this context, regardless of the size of the study area(s). An 

example of a well-designed study is the central Aleutian Islands coral study used for predictive modeling 

of coral distributions in that region (Woodby et al. 2009). Validation and prediction explicitly test 

whether an expected outcome (e.g., animal presence-absence, density, vital rates) occurs at another 

location with similar habitat characteristics. Finally, inference applies quantitative models to predict 

variables (e.g., fish abundances, vital rates) over the full ranges of environmental variables shown to be 

significant predictors. The research priorities for habitat utilization and productivity and habitat recovery 

rates were revised by adding “apply information from EFH studies at regional scales.” 

EFH Descriptions are to be defined at the highest level of information available (Levels 1-4). In Alaska, 

EFH is limited to mainly adult life stages and are fairly broad. To refine EFH, analytical methodologies 

and models are needed to refine EFH Descriptions. However, the goal of scaling information to region in 

practice may conflict with the goal of collecting higher level EFH information in habitat utilization and 

productivity studies. These goals conflict because of the high cost of collecting more information (Level 3 

and 4 information) for a large study area. The recommended balance for these priorities is to pursue 

both Level 2 analyses of existing data at regional scales and Level 3 and 4 collections of new data at 

small scales that follow a sound statistical pathway, recognizing that it may take years to reach regional 

scale inference. 

5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emphasize Measurement of Habitat Recovery Rates 

A recovery rate model developed for Alaska (Fujioka 2006) is an essential tool for assessing the effects of 

fishing on habitat and habitat-forming species. New research to update and validate the model, 

including measurement of habitat recovery rates, remains a high priority because few habitat recovery 

studies have been completed. Habitat recovery rates were identified in the 2006 plan as a research 

priority and an emphasis on this priority was added following a progress review of EFH research in 2008. 

During 2005-2009, about 15% of AFSC EFH studies addressed habitat recovery (NPFMC 2010). More 

research is needed, in particular because recovery rate studies are usually long-term studies conducted 

over several years. Currently three long-term studies are underway (Recruitment and response to 

damage of Alaska gorgonian coral; Reproductive ecology of red tree coral; Recovery of deep water 

sponges and sea whips from bottom trawling) and a study of eelgrass disturbance and recovery has 

been completed (www.afsc.noaa.gov/HEPR/EFH_research_projects.htm). Recovery rate studies remain 

as a high priority for habitat research because of relevance to fishery management. 

The long-term studies of coral and sponge recovery rates mentioned in the previous paragraph provide 

one approach to measure recovery rates. In this approach, the size and condition of organisms at the 

study site(s) are measured on the first visit and a subset of organisms are mechanically damaged. On 

subsequent visits, size and condition are measured, which provide an estimate of recovery rate over 

time which typically is measured for several years. Comparing habitat characteristics in areas currently 

closed to fishing to those adjacent areas open to fishing provides another approach to measure recovery 

rates. In this approach, size and condition of organisms are measured in both the open and closed areas 

and the results compared to estimate a recovery rate for the length of the closure. Evaluations have 

been conducted on soft bottom sediments of the Bering Sea (McConnaughey et al. 2000; 

McConnaughey et al. 2005) and Gulf of Alaska (Stone and Masuda 2003). In addition, evaluations have 

been conducted on skate nursery sites (potential HAPC) (Hoff 2008, 2010) and Gulf of Alaska high-relief 

sites (existing HAPC). Similar work is needed to understand habitat recovery in other geographic areas 

and from other sources of anthropogenic impacts (e.g., contaminants or loss of aquatic vegetation). 

Geographic-based Database for Offshore Habitat Information 

Currently no comprehensive geographic-based database exists for offshore habitat information2. The 5-

year EFH review recommended beginning development of a GIS relational database for habitat, 

including development of a historical time series of the spatial intensity of interactions between 

commercial fisheries and habitat, which will be needed to evaluate impacts of changes in EFH on the 

growth, reproduction, and distribution of fish and shellfish (NPFMC 2010). An offshore habitat database 

would enable habitat assessments, a goal of the NMFS Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan (NMFS 

2010). 

A habitat database would support several general functions including data ingestion, storage and 

distribution, queries for EFH information level for FMP species by life stage, and links to EFH project 

publications and other information resources. A habitat database also would support several specific 

functions: 

2

 The ShoreZone and FishAtlas geographic databases store nearshore habitat information 

(alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/shorezone/szintro.htm). 

6
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 A place to store and integrate information from EFH studies and habitat classifications based on 

seafloor mapping data and other available data. 

 An inventory that would indicate data gaps, which in some cases in the past has brought 

forward information from other agencies that fill a gap. 

 A tool for geographic-based analyses of habitat data. 

A geographic-based database would form the backbone of analyses such as an updated habitat impacts 

model for use in characterizing EFH and refining EFH descriptions and to support EFH consultations. A 

geographic-based database also would facilitate the generalization of study results to regional scales; 

the lack of a geographic-based database inhibits our ability to interpret habitat studies which often 

occur in small areas. For offshore, this database along with the ShoreZone/FishAtlas database, would 

form the data management part of EFH research. The expectations are that this work will build on 

existing efforts and that data collected during EFH studies will be stored in this database. The research 

priority for improve the habitat impacts model was revised by adding “begin to develop geographicbased database for offshore habitat data”. 

Emphasize Habitat Blueprint Initiative 

Within 2012, the Alaska Regional Office and AFSC will identify a priority area to focus habitat-related 

research and management efforts in support of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Blueprint, advanced by 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Eric Schwaab. Alaska’s marine waters support the Nation’s largest 

and most valuable fisheries. While considered remote, Alaska also faces large-scale developments 

including commercial ports, oil and gas explorations, large-scale mineral extraction, commercial fishing, 

hydroelectric and tidal energy projects, and is home to major recreational and subsistence fishing 

opportunities, all of which are key parts of Alaska’s economy. Marine habitats remain mostly natural 

and intact, yet face mounting pressure from these activities. 

The Habitat Blueprint identifies implementation of a systematic and strategic approach to habitat 

science to inform effective decision-making in order to support the Blueprint’s desired outcomes: 1) 

sustainable and abundant fish populations; 2) recover threatened and endangered species (as 

applicable); 3) protect coastal and marine habitats at risk; 4) resilient coastal communities; and 5) 

increased coastal and marine tourism, access, and recreation. Collaboration efforts include other NOAA 

line offices, such as the National Ocean Service, other federal agencies, and the State of Alaska. An 

increased effort will be made to reach out, develop, and expand partnerships with other coastal entities 

and communities. 

Using the terminology of the Habitat Blueprint Initiative, our Habitat Conservation Strategy will involve 

two basic habitat science objectives: 1) Improve scientific understanding of marine resources and 

habitat conditions through expanded biological surveys and new predictive modeling to link habitat 

attributes to fish species or assemblages, and 2) Identify habitat areas and functions of greatest concern 

for supporting fish and marine mammals. These objectives are achievable through development of a 

science plan and studies that document seasonal habitat usage by fish and marine mammals, including 

nearshore habitat surveys , deeper water surveys where EFH has been designated for managed species 

(NPFMC 2010). 

7
 

 

 

 

Research Priorities for the Revised Plan 

Characterize habitat utilization and productivity; increase the level of information available to 

describe and identify EFH; apply information from EFH studies at regional scales3

 – This priority focuses 

on understanding the relationship between habitat type, patterns of use by species, and differences 

between habitats in productivity of managed species. Our approach is to support integrated research 

projects that combine measurements of habitat characteristics, habitat utilization, and habitat 

productivity in one study, and also combine laboratory experiments, controlled field manipulations, and 

field observations. Our approach also includes conducting studies that support refining the description 

and identification of EFH in FMPs. 

Currently the level of EFH information for all managed Alaska species is classified as either Level 1 or no 

information is available. The level of EFH information could be elevated to Level 2 for the adult stages of 

most FMP species and the juvenile stage of a subset of these species through analysis of existing data. 

The level of EFH information could be elevated to Level 3 through collection of new data during field 

studies that address the habitat utilization and productivity research priority. 

EFH studies should follow a scientifically sound pathway to scale EFH information to apply at regional 

scales and eventually at the population level. In particular, proposals should build upon previous 

research and emphasize statistical principles such as replication, representative sampling, validation and 

prediction, and inference. The goal of scaling information to region in practice may conflict with the goal 

of collecting higher level EFH information in habitat utilization and productivity studies. The 

recommended balance for these priorities is to pursue both Level 2 analyses of existing data at regional 

scales and Level 3 and 4 collections of new data at small scales that follow a sound statistical pathway, 

recognizing that it may take years to reach regional scale inference. 

Assess sensitivity, impact, and recovery of disturbed benthic habitat – Habitat-forming biota such as 

corals and sponges often are sensitive to human activity and may take many years to recover from 

disturbance. Some managed fish and shellfish species use this habitat for protection and camouflage. 

Estimates of habitat impacts, sensitivity, and recovery rates are necessary to understand the effects of 

human activities. Recovery rates are defined as the rate of change of impacted habitat back to unimpacted habitat following disturbance. Sensitivity is defined as the susceptibility of habitat to 

degradation. Habitat may be affected by fishing and studies of sensitivity to and recovery from these 

effects are a priority. In addition, coastal areas often are affected by non-fishing impacts. Recovery and 

monitoring studies of impacted coastal areas, such as LTF sites and marine ports, are needed to 

determine if these sites have returned to their pre-utilization state following facility closure or 

development. Recovery rate studies remain as a high priority for habitat research. 

Validate and improve habitat impacts model; begin to develop geographic-based database for 

offshore habitat data – A habitat impacts model has been used to estimate effects of fishing in Alaska, 

but the parameter estimates were not well resolved and had a high degree of uncertainty. Model 

validation remains a priority because the habitat impacts model played a key role in evaluating the 

3

 The priority to conduct EFH studies that can be applied at regional scales also applies to the third research 

priority. 

8
 

 

 

 

effects of fishing and deciding on measures to conserve and protect habitat areas from fishing gear 

impacts (i.e., closure areas). 

Currently no comprehensive geographic-based database exists for offshore habitat information. A 

habitat database would support several general functions including data ingestion, storage and 

distribution, queries for EFH information level for FMP species by life stage, and links to EFH project 

publications and other information resources. A geographic-based database for offshore data, along 

with the ShoreZone/FishAtlas database, would form the data management part of EFH research. 

Map the seafloor – Information characterizing fish habitat and utilization in Alaska is limited to coarse 

depth and habitat information (e.g., nautical charts) and utilization information from AFSC surveys for 

the adult stage of commercially important species. Missing are fine-scale depth and habitat information, 

as well as juvenile stage information, especially nearshore. Seafloor mapping is costly and timeconsuming. The research approach is support of low-cost mapping efforts with existing sampling 

platforms (e.g., trawl survey vessels, NOAA vessels) to reduce costs. 

Assess coastal and marine habitats facing development - Characterization of coastal habitats 

susceptible to disturbance from non-fishing activities is a priority. These non-fishing activities include oil 

and gas development, logging, mining, urbanization, and contaminants. The research approach includes 

coastal habitat mapping (ShoreZone) as well as field surveys of a representative subset of the mapped 

habitats to measure fish and shellfish utilization. Priority coastal habitats for study are those utilized by 

managed fish and shellfish species and facing development pressure. 

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citations 

AFSC. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Research Implementation Plan for Alaska for FY 2007 – 2011. U.S. 

Dep. Commer., NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 13 p. 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/HEPR/docs/UpdatedEFHResearchImplementationPlan.pdf 

AFSC. 2010. NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center Science Plan. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center. 20 p. 

Blackhart, K. 2010. Proceedings. 11th National Stock Assessment Workshop: Characterization of 

scientific uncertainty in assessments to improve determination of acceptable biological catches 

(ABCs); Joint Session of the National Stock and Habitat Assessment Workshops: Incorporating 

habitat information in stock assessments; and 1st National Habitat Assessment Workshop: 

Moving towards a national habitat science program. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-F/SPO-112. 153 p. 

Echave, K., M. Eagleton, E. Farley, and J. Orsi. 2012. A refined description of essential fish habitat for 

Pacific salmon within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in Alaska. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-236, 104 p. 

Fujioka, J. T. 2006. A model for evaluating fishing impacts on habitat and comparing fishing closure 

strategies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63:2330-2342. 

Hoff, G. R. 2008. A nursery site of the Alaska skate (Bathyraja parmifera) in the eastern Bering Sea. Fish. 

Bull., U.S. 106:233-244. 

Hoff, G. R. 2010. Identification of skate nursery habitat in the eastern Bering Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

403:243-254. 

Lauth, R. R. 2011. Results of the 2010 eastern and northern Bering Sea continental shelf bottom trawl 

survey of groundfish and invertebrate fauna. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSAFSC-227, 256 p. 

McConnaughey, R. A., K. L. Mier, and C. B. Dew. 2000. An examination of chronic trawling effects on 

soft-bottom benthos of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57:1377-1388. 

McConnaughey, R. A., J. V. Olson, and M. F. Sigler. 2009. Alaska Fisheries Science Center essential fish 

habitat data inventory. AFSC Processed Rep. 2009-01, 40 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., NOAA, Natl. 

Mar. Fish. Serv., 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle WA 98115. 

McConnaughey, R. A., and S. E. Syrjala. 2009. Statistical relationships between the distributions of 

groundfish and crabs in the eastern Bering Sea and processed returns from a single-beam 

echosounder. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66:1425-1432. 

McConnaughey, R. A., S. E. Syrjala, and C. B. Dew. 2005. Effects of chronic bottom trawling on the size 

structure of soft-bottom benthic invertebrates. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 41:425-437. 

NMFS. 2010. Marine fisheries habitat assessment improvement plan. Report of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan Team. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-108. 115 p. 

NPFMC. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-year review for 2010: North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/review.htm 

Schwaab, E. C. 2011. NOAA Fisheries Habitat Blueprint (Memo to NOAA Fisheries Leadership Council) 2 

p. Silver Spring, MD. 

Stone, R. P., and M. M. Masuda. 2003. Characteristics of benthic sediments from areas open and closed 

to bottom trawling in the Gulf of Alaska, U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC140, 40 p. + Appendices (111 p.). 

Woodby, D., D. Carlile and L. Hulbert. 2009. Predictive modeling of coral distribution in the Central 

Aleutian Islands, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 397: 227-240. 

Yeung, C., and R. A. McConnaughey. 2008. Using acoustic backscatter from a sidescan sonar to explain 

fish and invertebrate distributions: a case study in Bristol Bay, Alaska. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65:242– 

254. 

11 
 

Table 1.--Federally managed species and species groups (within Fishery Management Plans) of the 

Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska. 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

for Groundfish of 

the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands 

EFH Species 

Walleye pollock 

Pacific cod 

Sablefish 

Yellowfin sole 

Greenland turbot 

Arrowtooth flounder 

Northern rock sole 

Alaska plaice 

Rex sole 

Dover sole 

Flathead sole 

Pacific ocean perch 

Northern rockfish 

Shortraker rockfish 

Scientific Name 

Theragra chalcogramma 

Gadus macrocephalus 

Anoplopoma fimbria 

Limanda aspera 

Reinhardtius hippoglossoides 

Atheresthes stomias 

Lepidopsetta polyxystra 

Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus 

Errex zachirus 

Microstomus pacificus 

Hippoglossoides elassodon 

Sebastes alutus 

Sebastes polyspinus 

Sebastes borealis 

Eggs 

1 

x 

x 

x 

1 

x 

x 

1 

x 

x 

1 

x 

x 

x 

Larvae 

1 

1 

1 

x 

1 

x 

1 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

1 

x 

Early Juveniles 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Late Juveniles 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

Adults 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Blackspotted\Rougheye rockfish 

Dusky rockfish 

Thornyhead rockfish 

Atka mackerel 

Squid 

Sculpins 

Skates 

Sharks 

Octopus 

Forage fish complex 

Sebastes aleutianus 

Sebastes ciliatus 

Sebastolobus 

Pleurogrammus monopterygius 

Cephlapoda, Teuthida 

Cottidae 

Rajidae 

Lamnidae; Squalidae 

Octopoda; Vampyromorpha 

Osmeridae 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

x 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

for Groundfish of 

the Gulf of Alaska 

EFH Species 

Walleye pollock 

Pacific cod 

Sablefish 

Yellowfin sole 

Northern rock sole 

Southern rock sole 

Alaska plaice 

Rex sole 

Dover sole 

Flathead sole 

Arrowtooth flounder 

Pacific ocean perch 

Northern rockfish 

Shortraker rockfish 

Scientific Name 

Theragra chalcogramma 

Gadus macrocephalus 

Anoplopoma fimbria 

Limanda aspera 

Lepidopsetta polyxystra 

Lepidopsetta bilineatus 

Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus 

Errex zachirus 

Microstomus pacificus 

Hippoglossoides elassodon 

Atheresthes stomias 

Sebastes alutus 

Sebastes polyspinus 

Sebastes borealis 

Eggs 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Larvae 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

Early Juveniles 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Late Juveniles 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

Adults 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Blackspotted\Rougheye rockfish 

Dusky rockfish 

Yelloweye rockfish 

Thornyhead rockfish 

Atka mackerel 

Squid 

Sculpins 

Skates 

Sharks 

Octopus 

Forage fish complex 

Sebastes aleutianus 

Sebastes ciliatus 

Sebastes ruberrimus 

Sebastolobus 

Pleurogrammus monopterygius 

Cephlapoda, Teuthida 

Cottidae 

Rajidae 

Lamnidae; Squalidae 

Octopoda; Vampyromorpha 

Osmeridae 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

x 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

x 

x 

x 

Fishery 

Management Plan EFH Species Scientific Name Eggs Larvae Juveniles Late Juveniles Adults 

for the Scallop 

Fishery off Alaska Weathervane scallop Patinopectin caurinus x x x 1 1 

Fishery EFH Species Scientific Name Eggs Larvae Early Juveniles Late Juveniles Adults 

Management Plan Red king crab Paralithodes camtschaticus x x x 1 1 for Bering Blue king crab Paralithodes platypus x x x x x Sea/Aleutian 

Islands King and 

Tanner Crabs 

Golden king crab 

Snow crab 

Tanner crab 

Lithodes aequispina 

Chionoecetes opilio 

Chionoecetes bairdi 

x 

inferred 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1 

1 

x 

1 

1 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

for Fish Resources 

of the Arctic 

EFH Species 

Arctic cod 

Saffron cod 

Snow crab 

Scientific Name 

Boreogadus saida 

Eleginus gracilis 

Chionoecetes opilio 

Eggs 

x 

x 

inferred 

Larvae 

x 

x 

x 

Juveniles 

x 

x 

x 

Late Juveniles 

1 

1 

1 

Adults 

1 

1 

1 

Fishery 

Management Plan 

EFH Species Scientific Name 

Freshwater 

Eggs and 

Adults 

Freshwater 

Larve and 

Juveniles 

Estuarine 

Juveniles 

Marine 

Juveniles 

Marine 

Immature 

and Maturing 

Adults for the Salmon 

Fisheries in the Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 1 1 1 1 1 

EEZ off the Coast Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta 1 1 1 1 1 

of Alaska Coho salmon 

Sockeye salmon 

Pink salmon 

Oncorhynchus kisutch 

Oncorhynchus nerka 

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix: Request for EFH Proposals 

Each year the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) will request proposals for scientific research on 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in Alaska. The anticipated annual amount is up to $500,000. Individual 

project amounts of up to $150,000 will be considered. To be funded, proposals must involve habitat for 

species managed under a North Pacific Fishery Management Council Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

(Table 1 of main document) and meet research priorities of the Alaska EFH research plan. Priority 

coastal habitats for study are those facing development pressure (Appendix Table 1). Projects that 

address habitat information for Habitat Focus areas as defined by the Habitat Blueprint Initiative will 

receive priority consideration. 

Proposals should describe complete projects. Both single and multi-year projects, including multi-year 

recovery rate proposals that skip one or more years (e.g., visit study site in years 1, 3 and 5) will be 

considered. Proposals must be submitted for each year of multi-year projects, but priority will be given 

for the duration of the project. A status report is required at the end of the fiscal year for every project 

that receives EFH funding. Proposals are limited to five pages exclusive of reference and budget pages. 

Send electronic copies of full proposals to Mike.Sigler@noaa.gov by 31 October of each year. 

Review Schedule 

Approximate Date Activity 

31 August Request for proposals released 

31 October Proposal deadline 

Early November Proposal review 

Mid-December Prioritized list of proposals released 

When amount of EFH funds is certain Final funding decision 

Proposal Rating 

Proposals will be rated based on relevance to the EFH research priorities, scientific merit, probability of 

success, and quality of presentation; equal weight will be given to each factor. Scoring: Excellent (5), 

Very Good (4), Good (3), Fair (2), Poor (1). Proposals will be discussed jointly by the Habitat and 

Ecological Processes Research (HEPR) Team and Alaska Regional Office, Habitat Conservation Division 

staff. Separate recommendations will be prepared. The HEPR Team recommendation will consist of a 

ranked list of proposals. The HEPR Program Leader and Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat 

Conservation will subsequently prepare a consolidated recommendation based on the scientific rating 

and overall priority for fisheries management for the final decision by the AFSC Science and Research 

Director and Alaska Regional Administrator. Recovery rate studies will continue to receive priority status 

in the ranking for relevance to fishery management, although no specific point score will be added. 

13 
 

 

 

 

Well-written proposals are easy to score. A good proposal incorporates several elements. We request 

that all proposals: 

	 List objectives or hypotheses. 

	 Map study area(s). 

	 Explain acronyms. 

	 Provide thorough study purpose and background. 

	 Explain why the proposal is habitat-related rather than, for example, stock assessment-related. 

	 Describe previous funding history of the study (e.g., funding year and amount). 

	 Describe how the revision responds to last year’s Team comments if the proposal is a 

resubmission. 

	 For habitat utilization and productivity studies, state the level of EFH information that will be 

collected and describe how the study will increase the level of EFH information for the species 

(for a description of the levels see the ‘Increase the level of EFH information” section of the 

Alaska EFH research plan). 

	 State and justify sample sizes planned for the study. Describe methods for statistical analysis of 

the results. State which results of the anticipated analyses will answer which stated 

hypothesis/objective. 

	 EFH studies should follow a scientifically sound pathway to scale EFH information to region. In 

particular, proposals should build upon previous research and emphasize statistical principles of 

replication, representative sampling, validation and prediction, and inference, where the 

method for scaling-up is explicitly stated. Nesting, replication and representative sampling are 

principles of study design that determine the limits of inference for study results. Justify the 

choice of study sites in this context, regardless of the size of the study area(s). 

	 Compare multiple habitats to determine whether the hypothesized essential fish habitat in fact 

has, for example, higher fish densities. Studies that contrast data from multiple treatments or 

conditions (e.g., different habitat types, temporal patterns of use, recovery rates) are preferred 

over single-treatment approaches. 

	 Write one proposal for each distinct study, rather than multiple studies within one proposal. 

	 Include the status report as an appendix if the proposal describes a continuing study. 

14 
 

 

Write complete proposals that provide sufficient information for the review panel to judge your proposal. 

Title 

Principal Investigators: 

Research Priority: 

Justification: 

Project Description: 

Required Resources: Provide details of, for example, travel, rent (charters), equipment, and supplies 

(fuel) 

Expected Products: List the milestones to be achieved this year, the products to be delivered upon 

completion, and when the milestones and products will be completed. Product descriptions should 

include the method of dissemination (e.g., refereed publication).
 

References: 

Status Report: Provide a status report if you are requesting funding for a project which received EFH 

funding in the past and include the status report with your proposal. 

15 
 

 

 

 

Budget 

Title 

Object 

Class 

Description Amount ($) 

1100 Direct Labor: Funds will not be approved for labor or 

benefits. 

1150 Overtime and hazard pay 

1200 Benefits: Funds will not be approved for labor or benefits. 

2100 Travel 

2200 Transportation 

2300 Rents (vessel charter) 

2400 Printing 

2500 Contracts: List name or type of contractor 

2600 Supplies and Materials: Itemize large items, group small 

stuff 

3100 Equipment: Itemize large items, group small stuff 

4100 Grants 

Total 

16 
 

Essential Fish Habitat project status report 

Reporting date: 

Project number: 

Title: 

PIs: 

Funding year: 

Funding amount: 

Status: Complete Incomplete, on schedule Incomplete, behind schedule 

Planned completion date if incomplete: 

Reporting: Have the project results been reported? If yes, state where the results were reported and 

attach an electronic copy of the report.
 

Results: What is the most important result of the study? 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 1. -- Alaska Regional Office, Habitat Conservation Division recommended coastal 

essential fish habitat research areas. 

Area/Specific 

sites/Nearest 

community 

Recently 

sampled 

(MonthYear) 

Who? (if 

known) 

On 

contiguous 

road 

system 

Small boat 

support Rationale 

Cook Inlet/Fire 

Island & Pt 

MacKenzie 

/Anchorage 

Aug-09; 

Jul-10; 

Jun/Jul/Sep12 

ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage 

Sparse information; chiefly completed by 

private research efforts. Alaska’s largest 

population center. Tidal energy site 

alternative. Possible site for LNG facility. 

Cook Inlet/Eagle 

River Bay & 

Trading 

Bay/Anchorage 

Jul-10 ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage Area is a known feeding area for 

endangered beluga whales. 

Cook 

Inlet/Nikiskha 

Bay/Nikiski/Kenai 

Yes HCD/Anchorage Tidal energy site alternative 

LNG Facility and expansion. 

Cook 

Inlet/Chuitna R. 

estuary/Tyonek 

2007 and 

2008 NGO's No HCD/Anchorage Area proposed for large-scale coal 

mining 

Cook Inlet/Iniskin 

& Iliamna 

Bays/Tyonek 

No HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Area is an existing access point to 

service a large-scale mining district 

(several different mines). Semi-private 

road (15mi ) serves Lake Iliamna from 

Pile Bay in Cook inlet and listed in ADOT 

Industrial Roads Plan for AK. 

Resurrection 

Bay/Head of 

Bay/Seward 

Aug-09 ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage Little to no nearshore information exists. 

Resurrection 

Bay/Harbor 

Area/Seward 

Mar-09 COE CW EA Yes HCD/Anchorage Dive focused on art reef placement. No 

fish sampling conducted. 

Resurrection 

Bay/4th of July 

Creek/Seward 

Aug-09 ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage Possible site for LNG facility and 

aquaculture site. 

Resurrection 

Bay/Lowell 

Point/Seward 

Yes HCD/Anchorage Partnering with Sea Life Center exists 

Kachemak 

Bay/KBERR & 

outlet of Battle 

Creek/Homer 

No HCD/Anchorage 

Partnering with NOS KBay NERR & 

CIRCAC 

Site of proposed hydro project (Snyder 

Falls) 

Northern 

PWS/Harbor 

Area/Valdez 

Jul-10 ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage Information is dated (>20 years). 

Northern 

PWS/Mineral 

Creek/Valdez 

Jul-10 ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage LNG facility for Alaska Natural Gas 

Pipeline. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area/Specific 

sites/Nearest 

community 

Recently 

sampled 

(MonthYear) 

Who? (if 

known) 

On 

contiguous 

road 

system 

Small boat 

support Rationale 

Northern 

PWS/Gold 

Creek/Valdez 

Jul-10 ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage LNG facility for Alaska natural gas 

pipeline. 

Northern 

PWS/Shoup 

Bay/Valdez 

Jul-10 ABL; 

Johnson Yes HCD/Anchorage LNG facility for Alaska natural gas 

pipeline. 

Northern 

PWS/outlet of 

Allison 

Creek/Valdez 

Yes HCD/Anchorage 

Site of proposed hydro project (Allison 

Lake) which would flow into estuarine 

and anadromous habitat of lower Allison 

Creek 

Eastern 

PWS/Shepard 

Point/Cordova 

COE AK Ferry HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Information is dated (>20years). 

Community still suffers from Exxon 

Valdez incident. 

Eastern 

PWS/Harbor 

Area/Cordova 

Jan-08 COE CW EA AK Ferry HCD/Anchorage HCD Dive investigation only - no shore 

Eastern 

PWS/Fleming 

Spit/Cordova 

AK Ferry HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Information is dated (>20years). 

Community still suffers from Exxon 

Valdez incident. 

Eastern 

PWS/outlet of 

Snyder 

Creek/Cordova 

No HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Site of proposed hydro project (Snyder 

Falls) which would flow into estuarine 

and anadromous habitat of lower Snyder 

Creek 

Cold Bay/King 

Cove Art 

Reef/King Cove 

May-97 COE CW EA AK Ferry No Artificial reef needs to be re-assessed. 

ROV needed; site@50m. 

Upper Lynn 

Canal/Skagway 

River & 

Bay/Skagway 

Yes ABL or JNU 

FWS? 

No baseline data; Harbor expansion, ore 

dock, cruise ships 

Upper Lynn 

Canal/Haines 

Harbor Area 

Aug-10 ABL; 

Johnson Yes ABL or JNU 

FWS? Data limited to recent nearshore work. 

Upper Lynn 

Canal/Portage 

Cove/Haines 

Yes ABL or JNU 

FWS? 

Lush, unmapped eelgrass; Few patches 

known in upper Lynn Canal 

Upper Lynn 

Canal/Lutak 

Inlet/Haines 

Yes ABL or JNU 

FWS? 

No baseline data; LTF and contaminated 

uplands 

Upper Lynn 

Canal/Katzehin 

Bay/Haines 

No ABL or JNU 

FWS? 

No baseline data; Juneau Access Project 

proposed ferry terminal 

Upper Lynn 

Canal/Endecott 

River 

estuary/Haines 

No ABL or JNU 

FWS? 

No baseline data; Juneau Access Project 

proposed route 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area/Specific 

sites/Nearest 

community 

Recently 

sampled 

(MonthYear) 

Who? (if 

known) 

On 

contiguous 

road 

system 

Small boat 

support Rationale 

Lower Lynn 

Canal/William 

Henry 

Bay/Juneau 

No ABL or JNU 

FWS? 

No baseline data; Juneau Access Project 

proposed route 

Lower Lynn 

Canal/St. James 

Bay/Juneau 

No ABL or JNU 

FWS? 

No baseline data; Juneau Access Project 

proposed route 

Lower Lynn 

Canal/Yankee 

Cove/Juneau 

Yes ABL 

Need long-term monitoring of artificial 

reefs; Have extensive baseline (dives), 

control, and colonization information 

Frederick 

Sound/Thomas 

Bay/Petersburg 

No 

Site of three potential hydropower 

developments with no information on 

nearshore marine resources 

Balboa 

Bay/Albatross 

Anchorage/Sand 

Point 

No 

Proposed GOA-side marine terminal to 

service future Bristol Bay Region /North 

Aleutian Basin Oil & Gas exploration and 

development. 

Nushagak & 

Kvichak 

Bays//Dillingham 

& Naknek 

Jul-05 

 AFSC 

Ormseth; 

UAF 

Norcross 

No 

Area faces an increase in oil, gas, and 

mineral exploration and development. 

Pebble Mine downstream water quality 

conditions too. 

St. Paul 

Island/Salt 

Lagoon/St. Paul 

Jun-05 COE CW 

EA; LGL 

Salt lagoon was sampled prior to recent 

development. Information post-project 

will assess changes. 

St. Paul 

Island/East 

Landing (followup)/St. Paul 

Apr-94 ABL; Freese Seafood outfall area; noted repeated 

work needed. Dive assessment. 

St. Paul 

Island/Artificial 

Wave Dampening 

Reefs/St. Paul 

COE CW EA 

Reefs are heavily kelp forested after 

placement. Fish community unsampled / 

unobserved. Dive assessment needed. 

St. George 

Island/Zapadni 

Bay/St. Paul 

COE CW EA 

Seafood processing discharge. Debris 

accumulation; continued habitat loss; fish 

assemblages unknown. 

St. George 

Island/Village 

Cove/St. Paul 

COE CW 

Seafood processing discharge. Debris 

accumulation; continued habitat loss; fish 

assemblages unknown. 

Norton 

Sound/Near Sun 

River and Along 

coast/Nome 

COE CW EA No 

Some offshore info exists, however 

dated (1980s BIMA project). Large 

offshore gold mine dredge activity in 

marine substrates deeper than 30 ft and 

nearshore areas. Region also faces an 

increase in oil, gas, and mineral 

exploration and development. 

20 
 

 

Area/Specific 

sites/Nearest 

community 

Recently 

sampled 

(MonthYear) 

Who? (if 

known) 

On 

contiguous 

road 

system 

Small boat 

support Rationale 

Kotzebue 

Sound//Kivalina late 90s 

COE CW 

EA; Tech 

Cominco 

No HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Region may serves as new gateway to 

the Arctic. Port and large fuel storage 

exists for Red Dog Mine. Area will see 

an increase in oil & gas exploration and 

development. 

Chukchi & 

Beaufort Seas/ 

marine areas/ 

nearshore & 

barrier lagoons 

80s: 

Aug 2004-

09 & Sep 

2009 

OCSEAP; 

Barrow 

AreaABLJohnson 

No HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Region faces increased oil exploration & 

development activities. Infrastructure 

non-existent. 

Prudhoe 

Bay//West Dock 

Causeway 

early 90s Thorsteinson 

Yes (with 

Oil Field 

permission) 

HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Region faces an increase in oil & gas 

exploration and development. Deepwater access & fill in W.D. breach. 

Mikkelsen Bay//Pt 

Thompson No HCD/Anchorage 

Possible Natural gas pipeline facility. 

Foggy Island 

Bay/Liberty/Bullen 

Point 

COE No HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Oil drill site (pipelines and offshore 

island) 

Eastern Camden 

Bay//Kaktovik early 90s Thorsteinson No HCD/Anchorage 

Possible 

Region faces an increase in oil & gas 

exploration and development. 

21