Page 59

be of general use, but will be particularly important where
salinity profiles change with rainfall, drought, increasing sea
levels or land subsidence, and interactions between salinity and
contaminant effects. Again, such classification of chemical and
physical variables is paramount to establishing the habitat
requirements of a range of marine fish and invertebrates.

Based on the DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetlands Inventory Program, NOAA has recently commenced drawing
together information that is compiled into the National Estuarine
Inventory (NEI). The first NEI, "Coastal Wetlands - New England
Region", brings together information having to do with estuaries
and wetlands from Connecticut to the Canadian border. This NEI
gives information on the percent of each total county area that
is defined as wetlands. Moreover, it is a good example of the
use of certain historical information (i.e., the FWS National
Wetland Inventory). By providing depictions of available
wetlands within each major region, and providing a base for
understanding the characteristics of the wetlands and estuaries
within these regions, it becomes possible to relate habitat needs
of marine fish and inverterbrates to available habitat. Beyond
this, changes in the quantity (acres) of wetlands within the area
can be quickly assessed by doing periodic updates of the
information. We already know that some 90% of the coastal
wetlands in California have been lost, and that more than 50% of
the coastal wetlands in Louisiana and Connecticut have been
degraded in some way that eliminates them as a functional part of
a national or regional estuarine system.

By having the inventories of estuarine habitats available,
researchers can, in the future, look at more specific conditions
within local estuaries. For instance Thayer and Chester (1989)
have recently considered basins and channels as habitat for a
range of fisheries in Florida Bay. These authors determined that
the channels within the Bay support a higher diversity of fish.
Moreover, channel areas generally displayed the greatest overall
standing stocks and densities of sea grasses. By conducting
analyses of the distribution and the abundance of finfish, and
their life history stages, it is now known that these specific
subsystems provide habitat for pre-recruits (larvae and
juveniles) and also provide luxuriant populations of forage
species relative to higher salinity habitats. It is also known
that a range of alterations are rapidly impacting on marine
fisheries populations and communities (Colby, et al., 1985)
within these habitats.

Other authors (Dawes, et al., 1985) have studied
specifically the sea grass communities in comparable habitats
throughout Florida. They measured the seasonal biomass and
energy content inherent in sea grass communities and have begun
to make calculations as to the production of forage available as
food to fishes, invertebrates, and their various developmental


Page 123

—

sonsuajoeieyy |

%66 e9L GOL juawuipas |
| (%b6) %EB vLry LZS Ayeno 1238
uaBAXo |
(%06-Z8) %8Z LOL LEL Paajossip snonunuog |
SJUBUIWIEIUOD |
%86 coL SOL JUBUUIpas |
%00L €z €z Ayioixoy uwnjog 4aje Ag |
%86 ZOL SOL Ay191x0 1 juaUpas |

(%8ZL) %EZL
VL
_'%86) HEC

coL

S}ueuIWwe}u0D YsI4 |



Page 25

resource losses from tissue contamination depends on the
existence of an active program of monitoring concentrations of
contaminants in resource species. For example, there is a
network of state and municipal programs to monitor coliform
bacteria concentrations in shellfish and surrounding waters that
is used to determine which areas should be closed to harvest. In
addition, some states conduct tests for coliform bacteria on lots
of shellfish entering the market supply system, to protect
consumers from illegally harvested contaminated shellfish. This
multi-agency network for monitoring and regulating nearshore and
estuarine shellfisheries has led to the closure of thousands of
acres of shellfish beds in Northeast coastal waters.

Until quantitative estimates of resource loss are available
there is no way to assess the severity of the effects of habitat
loss and environmental degradation on fisheries in the Northeast
Region. Frequent restatement of the qualitative assertions that
pollution kills or contaminates fish and that habitat destruction
is harming fish stocks do not make those assertions any more
convincing or compelling. Some quantitative measures of resource
losses are required.

Proposed Actions: The following steps are recommended in an
effort to provide some quantitative loss estimates:

1) Convene a workshop in early 1991 to discuss
resource losses, assemble literature and unpublished
data/observations, and begin the effort of publishing a
compendium of best-available information for use by
decision makers. The focus should be on quantifying
habitat degradation and lost harvests, including the
connections between habitat and productivity.

2) Improve utilization of and coordination with
NOAA/NOS and other data sources to document habitat and
resource trends: This may be most possible in coastal
waters where habitat degradation has been most common
and where such records as shellfish harvests could
enable comparisons. This could be a good opportunity
to collaborate with state agencies, which we must do,
if we are to progress toward our overall mission of
integrating habitat issues into fishery management
decision making. We might be able to conduct a pilot
study with the Gulf of Maine Initiative (maybe in
conjunction with the two Canadian provinces) or to
expand the literature assessment work being conducted
by Diane Rusanowsky and Mike Ludwig at the NER Habitat
Conservation Branch office in Milford, CT.




Page 119

EXPOSURE INDICATORS

Sediment toxicity (D)

Water column toxicity (R)

Sediment contaminants (C)

Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion (D)

Redox potential discontinuity
(R)


Page 68

however, is that certain species of phytoplankton may suddenly
bloom out of all normal proportion to their partners who share
their ambient environment. Species of phytoplankton in coastal
waters will suddenly go from a few cells per hundred milliliters,
to tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of
individuals. In warmer, shallower waters such cells quickly use
all available nutrients and literally starve to death; when this
occurs bacteria rapidly attack the individual cells, in many
cases using up the available oxygen in the particular water mass.
This results in a set of circumstances in which plankton blooms
eccur as a result of eutrophication, to be followed by hypoxia or
anoxia.

Some clouds are colored. The so-called "red tides" really
represent clouds of toxic phytoplankton cells existing within a
particular water mass. Again, it is erroneously thought that
such clouds of toxic organisms always reflect the activities of
man; it has been hypothesized, however, that man is today
releasing far more nutrient materials to coastal waters resulting
in eutrophication and plankton blooms. Nutrients induce the
blooming of phytoplankton organisms which then grow out of
proportion to their peers in the environment, leading to a
situation where, when fed upon by invertebrates or fish, they may
render the tissues of the latter toxic for human consumption. In
many instances, the red tides that are toxic are not actually red
but may be green, blue-green, orange, or other colors. The
important thing is that if, in fact, man is continually adding
more nutrients via agrarian situations, urban lawns, or open
discharge of sewage, he (she). is fostering inevitable increases
in red tide blooms; such clouds are not necessarily "cloudy".
Marine scientists have considerable understanding of the factors
that result in the development of red tides, toxic phytoplankton
blooms, and similar phenomena. Scores of international
conferences and symposia have been held and there are significant
data sets and information to allow marine scientists to assess
the situation. What is presently needed in the Northeast is a
statement as to how wide-spread the phenomena is, what are its
overt, and potential significances to the fisheries and habitat
quality, and how should these situations be mitigated? We know
from recent events in southern coastal waters, that certain red
tide phenomena, a bloom of Ptychodiscus brevis, occurred along
the North Carolina coast under rather unusual situations.

Between November 1, 1987 and January 21, 1988 a total of 145,000
hectares of approved shellfishing harvesting waters were closed
during this period. This affected 50% of the oyster and 98% of
the hardshell clam harvesting areas. Apparently "seed
populations" of this red tide species were carried from the Gulf
of Mexico around Florida to coastal areas off the Carolinas.
There they experienced an exposure to nutrient rich waters which
caused them to bloom, thus affecting large areas normally
dedicated to the shellfisheries.


Page 79

Appendix |
Overheads for Review of 12-Mile Dumpsite Recovery Study

| Preceding page Bark |


Merton C. Ingham

NMFS NEFC Narragansett Laboratory

Anthony Calabrese
NMFS NEFC Milford

John B. Pearce
NMFS NE Fisheries

Andrew Rosenberg
NMFS NE Fisheries

Robert Murchelano
NMFS NE Fisheries

Ambrose Jearld
NMFS NE Fisheries

Bruce Higgins
NMFS NE Fisheries

Alan White
NMFS

John B. O'Reilly
NMFS

Robert Learson

NMFS NEFC Gloucester Laboratory

Richard Roe
NMFS NE Regional

Harold Mears
NMFS NE Regional

Thomas Bigford
NMFS NE Regional

Robert Pawlowski
NMFS NE Regional

Greg Mannesto
NMFS NE Regional

Chris Mantzaris
NMFS NE Regional

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Laboratory

Center

Center

Center

Center

Center

Office

Office

Office

Office

Office

Office

NEFC Woods Hole Laboratory

NEFC Sandy Hook Laboratory

401-782-6200
FTS 837-6200

203-783-4200
FTS-642-5200

508-548-5123
FTS-840-1261

508-548-5123
FTS-840-1225

508-548-5123
FTS-840-1268

508-548-1123
FTS-840-1318

508-548-5123
FTS-840-1340

508-548-5123
FTS-840-1232

Ext

Ext

Ext

Ext

Ext

Ext

908-872-3005/6
FTS-342-3005/6

508-281-9207
FTS-837-9207

508-281-9250
FTS-837-9250

508-281-9243
FTS-837-9243

508-281-9209
FTS-837-9209

508-281-9221
FTS-837-9221

508-281-9340
FTS-837-9340

508-281-9346
FTS-837-9346

| Preceding Page Blank

Ke.

261

225

268

318

340

232

Page 15




Page 134

Peter Ralaton/Istand Institute

While the effects of such stresses are
not fully documented, natural proc-
esses in the Gulf are clearly being
affected:

— certain fish and shellfish exhi'
liver lesions, fin rot, and other signs of
environmental stre:
—the right whale, piping plover, and
other species of wildlife are endan-
gered ordeclining;

— populations of some commercially
valuable fish species depend upon an
increasingly limited number of year
classes, and some may not be repro-
ducing themselves atall;

— health advisories have been issued
in several nearshore regions of the
Gulf to protect the public from the
hazards associated with swimming in
contaminated waters and eating
contaminated seafood.

Impacts in the Gulf are not just
ecological; coastal economies are
affected by environmental degradation
in the Gulf:

— the Gulf s fishing economy isin
precarious condition because of
declining fish stocks;

—several hundred thousands ofacres
of productive shellfish habitatare
closed to harvesting due to sewage con-
tamination, resulting in serious loss of
livelihood;

—the public's increasing concern
regarding contaminated seafood may
be driving down the price of fish and
shellfish;

—loss of traditional harvesting jobs
has affected the character and econo-
mies of coastal communities whose
fundamental heritage is maritime.

Of greatest importance for the
future is the knowledge that the Gulf
of Maine can be protected. While
warning signs of environmental
deterioration are evident, much of the
Gulf remains healthy. Preventive
action, however, will be required to
maintain the environmental quality of
the Gulf, as well as to reverse all trends
toward degradation noted in this
report. Nowis the time to explore op-
portunities to ensure the continued
viability of the Gulf and its many uses.

The Gulf of Maine must be man-
aged as an ecosystem rather than asa
series of political jurisdictions. A
cooperative environmental strategy is
required to directa Gulf-wide monitor-
ing effort, to provide for pollution
abatementand control, and to pro-
mote the sustainable use of living
resources.

A broad-based understanding of the
ecological and economic values of the
Gulfis essential for th proved
stewardship of the Gulf. A public
education effort, including public

participation programs, curriculum
supplements, films, and educational
literature, will imparta greater sense of
environmental responsibility among
the public and generate supportlor
environmental planning.

Effective managementof the Gulf
will require ongoing cooperative
research on the structure and function
of the Gulf ecosystem, as well as on the
effects of pollution, habitatloss, and
other stresses.

This report isa first step in a multi-
lateral endeavor to improve environ-
mental managementof the Gulf.

While provincial, state, and federal
governmentsare taking this first step,
the assistance of industries, municipali-

ties, conservation groups, and individ-
ual citizens will be required if this
initiative is to be successful. An
unparalleled opportunity still exists to
preserve andenhance the Gulfot
Maine and its many uses: now is the
time to work together to protect this
invaluable resource.


Page 74

REFERENCES

Baker, S. 1985. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification of the
North Carolina Barrier Islands: Level III. UNC Sea Grant
Publication. UNC-SG-85-03. pp. 102.

Boehm, P. and P. Hirtzer. 1982. Gulf and Atlantic Survey for
Selected Organic Pollutants in Finfish. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-F/NEC-14. Woods Hole, MA. 111 pp.

Bokuniewicz, H. 1983. Submarine Borrow Pits as Contaminated
Sites for Dredged Sediment. In K. Kester, B. Ketchum, I.
Duedall, and P. Park (eds.). Wastes in the Ocean. Vol. II,
John Wiley and Sons, New York. 215-227 pp.

Boreman, J., E. Barth, N. Bolgiano, M. Boswell, J. Colvocoresses,
B. Gillelan, G. Patil, M. Prager, and L. Ruglo. 1990. Use
of Historial Data Sets to Determine Causes of Variability
and Long-term Trends in the Abundance of White Perch in the
York and Choptank Rivers. NOAA Special Report on Chesapeake
Bay. SRS-90-1. 16 pp.

Bulger, A., B. Hayden, M. McCormick-Ray, M. Monaco, and D.
Nelson. 1990. A Proposed Estuarine Classification:
Analysis of Species Salinity Ranges. ELMR Rpt. No. 5.
Strategic Assessment Branch, NOS/NOAA. Rockville,

MD. 28 pp.

Butler, M. and W. Herrnkind. 1991. Effect of benthic
microhabitat cues on the metamorphosis of pueruli of the
spiny lobster Panulirus argus. J. Crustacean Biol. 1(1):23-

Colby, D., G. Thayer, W. Hettler, and D. Peters. 1985. A
comparison of forage fish communities in relation to habitat
parameters in Faka Union Bay, Florida and eight collateral
bays during the wet season. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-162.

87 pp.

Cowardian, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. pp. 103.

Dawes, C., M. Hall, and R. Riechert. 1985. Seasonal biomass and
energy content in seagrass communities on the West Coast of
Florida. J. of Coast. Res. 1(3):255-62.


Page 32

STATUS OF EnCo PROJECTS - 13 MARCH 1991

Project No.

1.

Determine appropriate level of participation in national and
regional programs dealing with habitat or environmental
problems. (in progress)

Review , revise, and quantify habitat sections of fishery
management plans. (in progress)

Develop research plan for investigation of offshore biotoxins and
their effects on biota and humans. (in progress)

Quantification of resource losses resulting from environmental
degradation or habitat losses in the N E Region. (issue paper
prepared Dec 90, workshop Mar 91)

Develop protocols for working with NOS/OMA in response to
marine pollution incidents. (in progress)

Review and prepare recommendations for specific problem-
oriented research on fishery habitat-related issues. (in progress)

Review EPA’s EMAP marine program plans for the northeast
and identify components relevant to NMFS. (findings reported
Aug 90, liaison established Dec 90)

Develop plan for the formation of a nearshore and estuarine bio-
environmental research group in the NEFC. (on hold,
superseeded by plans at NMFS headquarters level)

Identification of all environmental programs in the northeast. and
determine those with relevance to NMFS. (first version of report
completed Sep 90 - held in computer file)


Q_ Response indicators—which quantify the re-
sponse of ecosystems to anthropogenic stress. Ex-
amples include signs of gross pathology (e.g., the
appearance of tumors in fish or visible damage to
tree canopies); the status of organisms that are
particularly sensitive to pollutants or populations
of organisms important to sportsmen, commercial
interests, or naturalists; and indices of community
structure and biodiversity.

Q Exposure indicators—which show whether
ecosystems have been exposed to pollutants, hab-
itat degradation, or other causes of poor condi-
tion. Examples include ambient pollutant concen-
trations; acidic deposition rates; bioaccumulation
of toxics in plant and animal tissues;
media-specific field bioassays using test organ-
isms; and measurements of habitat condition or
availability (e.g., siltation of bottom habitat and
vegetative canopy complexity).

OQ. Stressor indicators—which are socio-economic,
demographic, and regulatory compliance meas-
urements that are suggestive of environmental
stress. Examples include coal production, popula-
tion figures, pesticide applications, pollutant
emissions inventories, and land use.

Sets of indicators will be identified and measured in all cat-
egories for each ecosystem type. The set of response indica-
tors should reflect adverse effects of both anticipated and un-
anticipated environmental stresses (e.g., new pollutants).
Criteria must be developed for each response indicator to
identify when conditions change from acceptable or desira-
ble to unacceptable or undesirable. Criteria could be based
on conditions attainable under best management practices as
observed at “regional reference sites”, relatively undisturbed
sites that are typical of an ecoregion. A set of exposure indi-
cators will be used to determine whether ecosystems have
been exposed to environmental stress and what the causes of
poor condition are likely to be. For example, undesirably low
diversity in stream fish communities across a region might be
related to the presence of toxics in sediments, siltation of bot-
tom habitat, insufficient flow, low pH, or bioaccumulation of
toxics. In this example, stressor indicators that might be ex-
amined in diagnosing the cause would include the number
and type of industrial dischargers, farmed acreage or con-
struction activity, water withdrawals, presence of mine spoils
or acidic deposition, and regional pesticide application.

The goals of EMAP are quite different from those of the
compliance monitoring most commonly conducted by EPA.
While compliance monitoring involves identifying, with a
high degree of confidence, pollutant concentrations that can
be linked unequivocally to individual polluters, EMAP will
use sets of indicators to assess the condition of multiple eco-
logical systems across regions, coupled with an evaluation of
associated pollutant sources or other anthropogenic environ-
mental disturbance. EMAP’s regional approach to environ-
mental monitoring and assessment is quite unusual, and the
expected benefits include an improved capability to detect

Page 103

emerging problems and to identify those types of ecosystems
most in need of research, assessment, or remediation. Re-
gional monitoring and assessment is the only effective way to
determine whether current environmental regulations are ad-
equately protecting our ecological resources.

Activities

Many scientific questions remain to be answered. Is the
natural variability in response indicators too large to make
sufficiently precise estimates of regional conditions? Can eco-
system condition be compared among regions with differing
biota? What criteria will be used to determine acceptable ver-
sus unacceptable conditions? How are the data best interpret-
ed for systems with response indicators in undesirable ranges
and multiple, conflicting, or unknown exposure indicators?
What, if anything, might be done when a system’s range in
response indicators is acceptable, but the range in exposure
indicators is not? EMAP will seek short- and long-term an-
swers to these questions through three types of activities:

OQ Reports evaluating the availability and applicabili-
ty of indicators for all EMAP ecosystem
categories;

Q_> Workshops on ecological indicators; and

Q_ Development of a long-term indicator research
program for all EMAP ecosystem categories.

Network Design

Purpose

Meeting the goal of estimating status and trends in the con-
dition of the Nation’s ecosystems requires a monitoring
framework that:

Q Provides the basis for determining and reporting
on ecological indicators at various geographic
scales;

Q_ Is adaptable to monitoring on regional as well as
on continental and global scales;

Q_ Enables the examination of correlations among
spatial and temporal patterns of response,
exposure, and stressor indicators;

Q_ Enables the incorporation or substitution of data
from ongoing monitoring sites and networks; and

Q Is sufficiently adaptable and flexible to accommo-
date changes in spatial extent of the resource
(e.g., the areal extent of wetlands) and to address
current and emerging issues.


Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 228 / Friday, November 25. 1983 / Notices
— —

Page 39
53145

Research

Comment: Applaud scientific/
research thrust, but wauld like to see
requirement for sharing research
findings with a variety of non-Federal
organizations concerned with habitat
conservation.

Response: Implementation Strategy
No. 2 has been amended to clearly
reflect NMFS’ obligation to disseminate
information to the public.

Comment: NMFS' role in research
activities should receive greater
emphasis than is implied in proposed
policy statement.

Response: Implementation Strategies
Nos. 1, 2 and 3(b) reflect NMFS’ desire
to give greater emphasis to habitat
research activities.

Internciional Habitat Activities

Comment: Regarding NMFS’
participation in international habitat
activities in support of obligations of the
U.S. under international agreements, it
occurs that negotiations with foreign
nations who are seeking fishing rights in
U.S. waters, may offer opportunities for
international habitat protection
activities. Foreign nations with the best
habitat protection records might be
given preferential treatment in the
fisheries allocation process.

Response: The policy does not
preclude this suggestion. NMFS will
bring it to the attention of the
Department of State with which NMFS
cooperates in making allocation
determinations. Implementation
Strategy No. 6 recognizes the need for
interagency cooperation and
agreements.

For the reader's benelit. the modified
Statement of Policy follows.

Policy Framework

Traditionally, the habitat
conservation activities of NMFS have
been based primarily on the policies
developed in response to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). These laws give NMFS an
important advisory role. primarily with
respect to reviewing and commenting on
proposed Federal projects. licenses.
permits. etc. which couid affect living
marine resources. Because of this
advisory role, NMFS‘ habitat
conservation activities have been
determined largely by the policies,
actions, and deadlines of others. For the
most part, these activities have dealt
primarily with general concerns of
habitat loss and degradation and not
with specific habitat problems relating
to the species of living marine resources
for which NMFS has primary
management responsibilities. i.e. species

(1) covered or subject to being covered
under Fishery Management Plans
developed under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson Act) and (2) assigned to
NMFS under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and the Endangered
Species Act. Within this framework
these activities have been successful in
carrying out the objectives of the FWCA
and NEPA. However, evolving mission
and programs require the Agency to
focus its activities on habitats important
to the species referred to above.

In addition to the need for a change
resulting from the foregoing. a number of
events have occurred. that give NMFS
the opportunity to enhance substantially
its overall role in habitat conservation.
These include opportunities to use all of
NMFS’ legislative authorities to take an
active role in habitat conservation and
to ensure that it is appropriately
considered in all of NMFS" programs.
and opportunities to make the program
more effective through strategic
planning. Additional events include
changing Federal and State roles under
Administration policies and reduced
Federal budgets.

Although NMFS" past role in habitat
conservation was largely determined by
the FWCA and NEPA, significant recent
legislation, particularly the Magnuson
Act gives NMFS broader authority and
more opportunities for achieving habitat
conservation objectives. This Act also
provides comprehensive authority to
integrate habitat conservation
throughout the Agency's conservation,
management, and development
programs. This can be accomplished
through the Agency's strategic planning
process which is the mechanism for
setting priorities based on NMFS’
resources and responsibilities.

Changes in traditional Federal and
State roles are expected to occur asa
result of sorting out responsibilites
among Federal. State, and local
governments and shifting
decisionmaking and responsibility for a
variety of policy, budgetary. and
regulatory matters to State and local
governments. Implementation of this
policy will give State and local
governments more control over
activities that may be more
appropriately conducted at those levels
and, as a consequence. reduce direct
Federal expenditures and involvement.

With respect to living marine
resources and their habitats. the sorting
out of responsi ies between State
and Federal governments is complex.
Generally, the States have overall
responsibility within their inJand and
coastal waters (0-3 miles from shore) for
management of living manne resources
with the exception of marine mammals

and endangered species. NMFS has
been assigned the Federal management
responsibility, in partnership with the
Regional Fishery Management Councils.
for fishery resources in the U.S. Fishery
Conservation Zone (generally 3-200
miles). However, the Magnuson Act
recognizes a need for management
throughout the range of the species.
Moreover. many of the species of living
marine resources for which NMFS is
responsible spend a portion of their life
cycles in habitats primarily located in
State waters such as rivers, wetlands.
and estuaries. Many of these common
property resources cross State as well
as international boundaries. Therefore.
consistent with the Magnuson Act.
NMFS clearly has a role with respect to
certain living marine resource habitats
located in State, interstate and
international waters. NMFS also has a
long history of cooperation and
interaction with the States on State/
Federal fisheries acuvities under
number authorities other than the
Magnuson Act.

Policy

Habitat conservation activities will be
responsive to the mission and programs
of NMFS. The goal of NMFS’ habitat
conservation activities will be to
maintain or enhance the capability of
the environmént to ensure the survival
of marine mammals and endangered
species and to maintain fish and
shellfish populations which are used. or
are important to the survival and/or
health of those used. by individuals and
industries for both public and private
benefits—jobs, recreation. safe and
wholesome food and products.

NMFS will direct its habitat
conservation activities to assist the
Agency in (1) meeting its resource
management. conservation. protection,
or development responsibilities
contained in the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. and the
Endangered Species Act: and (2)
carrying out its responsibilities to the
U.S. commercial and marine
recreational fishing industry, including
fishermen. and the States pursuant to
programs carried out under other
authorities.

Since most of NMFS’ programs under
its broad mandates are influenced by
habitat considerations, habitat
conservation will be considered and
included in the Agency's
decisionmaking in all of its programs.
NMFS will bring all of its authorities to
bear in habitat conservation. These
authorities include those which give
NMFS an active. participatory role and
those, particularly the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. which give NMFS an
advisory role.


Page 64

are relatively few data which suggest a cause and effect, i.e.,
that fish with larger burdens of organic contaminants show
increased incidence of disease or other anomolies. Beyond all
this, such data are often in the category of being irrelevant to
the management of fish stocks; as with human populations, the
effective manager does not want to wait until contaminant levels
build to elevated readings and the species manifest disease or
other abnormalities. Ideally if one is managing coastal
environments, one would want to be aware of slight increases in
contaminants in the environment, and then the results of
measurements of subtle cues, i.e., changes in behavior. This
allows for corrective steps to be taken before environments are
"loaded" with a particular contaminate, or set of contaminants,
and before fish begin to show exceptional changes in biology or
pathology.

Given this, what are the cues that one might look for?
Among the various cues that can be disrupted are those which are
associated with settling of larvae and recruitment to appropriate
environments. By appropriate environments, it is understood that
the fish or invertebrates would settle, metamorphose, and develop
in those environments which would be suitable for the adult
stages, or instars, and which would provide the necessary
nutrients for growth and subsequent reproduction. For instance,
Butler and Herrnkind (1991) recently conducted experimental work
to determine how certain benthic microhabitat cues might
influence the metamorphosis of larvae of spiny lobsters. They
based their experimental approach on numerous studies which have
been done in the past and which have to do with cues that result
in appropriate behavior patterns for settlement of a range of
larvae. The classic work by D. P. Wilson (1953) provides the
basis for such understanding. In the case of the spiny lobster,
earlier work has suggested that larvae most appropriately would
settle on or amongst "suitable algae." Larvae that do not
contact a suitable substrata can be hypothesized to be forced by
imminent metamorphosis to choose other microhabitats where their
morphology, cryptic coloration, and behavior will not be
satisfactory, allowing them to fall prey to fish and invertebrate
predators. The question arises, what are the effects of organic
contaminants on such recruitment processes? Pearson, et al
(1981) reported on how petroleum in the ambient environment (both
experimental and natural habitats) influenced certain behavioral
responses of crustaceans. Their work suggested that in the
presence of elevated amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons,
inappropriate behavior and behavioral responses, inimicable to
survival, do occur.

Another area of interest in these regards has to do with the
specificity of host recognition or habitat recognition of
individual symbiotic organisms. For instance, it has been well
demonstrated that symbiotic pea crabs of the family Pinnotheridae
are often host specific; at a particular stage of development


Page 35

ES

11-25-83
Vol. 48 No. 228 Frida

y
November 25, 1983

Habitat Conservation; Policy for
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)

agency: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Commerce.

=)

| preceding Page Blank |-~


Page 67

the same principles used in the study of trampling of plants can
be applied to corals, and probably to those coastal wetlands
which are increasingly being used for recreational and commercial
purposes. For instance, the coral reefs found along the northern
and eastern shores of Australia are used heavily by recreational
divers as well as individuals collecting "precious" corals.
Scientists are attempting to provide a means of predicting the
resilience of extensive coral communities to varying levels of
use, and even the sole presence of man. The first approach is to
determine where the "footprints" occur, how "large" they are, and
how much damage to marine fisheries habitats they truly
constitute. Again, footprints may ultimately have something to
do with cues and changes in cues, and such footprints should
quantified both from a spatial point-of-view as well as a
chemical one.

Cues, loops, and footprints are all phenomena that can be
well understood intuitively. Generally the footprint phenomena
will exist in two dimensions and might be "palpable" by visual
and gustatory senses. Other phenomena will, however, exist in
three dimensional planes and thus be even more difficult to
assess and comprehend.

CLOUDS

One such phenomena has to do with the distribution and
abundance of plankton through the three dimensions characteristic
of coastal waters. Since the beginnings of marine biology
scientists have been interested in defining such waters. At one
time the only way to do this was through the use of nets that
were lowered through the water column-to retrieve samples from
imprecisely known depths. Later, scientists developed opening
and closing nets which allowed samples to be taken from exact
depths. Still, however, the scientist had to work from hundreds
of samples to.develop a three dimensional picture of plankton
distribution and abundance. Besides the three usual dimensions,
scientists soon learned that planktonic organisms are ephemeral.
Large masses of plankton will quickly move into, .through, and out
of a particular sampling area. In addition to this, many forms
of planktonic organisms bloom inexplicably; whereas yesterday
there were only a few cells of a phytoplankton species, or a few
individuals constituting a copepod population, tomorrow there
might be millions of such cells or organisms. These life forms
are constantly subject to the vagaries of the. physical and
chemical environments and thus depend.upon sudden changes in the
water column itself for successful production. Today,
individuals that are concerned about marine pollution are very
concerned about plankton populations. As noted, however, the
sudden comings and goings of these organisms generally make it
difficult to assess them from the point-of-view of contéminant
uptake or physical degradation properties. What we now know,


Page 104

Strategy

A global grid will be constructed for identifying sampling
sites. This grid will then be divided into sub-grids in accor-
dance with whatever scale of resolution (e.g., national, re-
gional, or subregional) is required for an assessment of the
condition of ecological resources. Currently, a sub-grid for
the United States and its surrounding continental shelf waters
that includes approximately 12,500 sites is being evaluated.
Within these sites, ecosystems will be identified and charac-
terized and their their number and areal extent will be deter-
mined. This initial characterization will be accomplished us-
ing existing maps, satellite imagery, and aerial photography.
Field sampling of sets of indicators will be conducted on a
subset of sites statistically selected from the 12,500 original
sites.

Current EMAP research will determine the number of sam-
pling sites needed for regional and national reports on the
status, changes, and trends in indicators. Two alternative ap-
proaches for field sampling of approximately 3,000 sites are

eing considered. In the first, about one-fourth of the 3,000
sites across the continental United States would be visited in
one year. The following year, a second one-fourth of the sites
would be sampled and so on, such that all sites would be vis-
ited during a four-year period. In the second, data would be
collected during a single year at all the sampling sites in a ge-
ographical area (e.g., the estuaries in the Virginian Province
from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras or all lakes and streams in
the Northeast) and sampling efforts would shift to a new area
during following years. The statistical, logistical, and report-
ing advantages of each option are being evaluated in light of
EMAP’s long-term goal to provide a national assessment of
the status, changes, and trends in ecological resources. In ad-
dition, the timing of the sampling period, the statistical proce-
dures for establishing where a measurement is to be made,
and the number of samples that must be collected at each
sampling site are being examined.

Activities

Current activities are focused on making the global grid fi-
nal, applying it to the United States, and identifying rules for
associating ecosystems with grid points and statistically se-
lecting them for sampling The EMAP design and sampling
strategy will be reviewed by the American Statistical Associa-
tion and appropriate ecosystem experts.

Landscape Characterization

Purpose

National assessments of status and trends of the condition
of ecosystems require knowing not only what percentage of a
particular resource is in desirable or acceptable condition,

ut also how much of that resource exists. Some types of wet-
lands are being lost at an alarming rate; conversion and loss
of other types of ecosystems are also occurring. Such changes

may be of particular concern if statistically correlated with
pollutant exposure or other anthropogenic stressors. For most
ecosystems, few national data bases can currently be used to
derive quantitative estimates of ecosystem extent and chang-
es in condition on a regional basis with known confidence.

The technique that will be used to address these issues is
landscape characterization. Landscape characterization is the
documentation of the principal components of landscape
structure—the physical environment, biological composition,
and human activity patterns—in a geographic area. EMAP
will characterize the national landscape by mapping land-
scape features (e.g., wetlands, forests, soils, and land uses) in
areas associated with the EMAP sampling grid. Characteriza-
tion uses remote sensing technology (satellite imagery and
aerial photography) and other techniques (e.g., cartographic
analysis and analysis of census data) to quantify the extent
and distribution of ecosystems. Over time, periodic aerial
and satellite photography will permit quantitative estimation
of changes in landscape features that might be related to an-
thropogenic activities and pollutants. The results of these
characterization analyses also permit more informed selec-
tion of systems for field sampling.

Strategy

The characterization strategy involves the application of re-
mote sensing technology to obtain high-resolution data on se-
lected sample sites and lower resolution data over broad geo-
graphical areas. Other data sources such as maps and
Censuses will be used to supplement the remote sensing data.

The remote sensing data also will furnish detailed informa-
tion needed for the network design. For example, lakes,
streams, wetlands, forests, and other types of ecosystems as-
sociated with each grid point will be identified so that a sub-
set for field sampling can be statistically selected. Characteri-
zation also supplies a portion of the data needed to classify
ecosystems into subcategories of interest (e.g., forest-cover
types, wetland types, crops, and lake types).

Certain types of landscape data assist in diagnosing the
probable causes of undesirable conditions in response indica-
tors. Characterization will describe the physical and spatial
aspects of the environment that reflect habitat modification,
for example, those that can amplify or counteract the effects
of toxicants and other pollutants on plants and animals.

Finally, characterization will compile data on stressor indi-
cators that can be identified from remote sensing and
mapped data, including land use, mining activities, popula-
tion centers, transportation and. power corridors, and other
anthropogenic disturbances.

EMAP will assemble, manage, and update these data in
Geographic Information System (GIS) format. A standardized
characterization approach and a landscape information net-
work common to all ecosystems will be used to optimize cost
and data sharing and to ensure common format and consis-
tency. Through close work with other agencies, EMAP will





Page 45

APPROVED AUGUST 29, 198¢

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

of the Northeast Region!

POLICY

The Environmental Policy of the Northeast Region,
National Marine Fisheries Service, is to minimize
adverse effects of man's activities on estuarine and
marine habitats by using provisions of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act and effective
working arrangements with other agencies.

RATIONALE

Purpose and Need

The Regional Policy responds to guidance from NOAA Fisheries that
directs the Regions to integrate habitat research and
conservation programs into fishery management processes.
Congressional leaders have also encouraged NOAA to make a
commitment to protect coastal ecosystems and living marine
resources. The Policy builds on NOAA Fisheries' Habitat
Conservation Policy.* and will result in significant benefits to
NER's constituents who are interested ina healthy environment,
jobs, recreation, and wholesome seafood now and in the future.

In a 15 August 1988 memorandum expressing priorities for NOAA
Fisheries, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries William
Brennan stated that "(e]fforts must continue and expand to
integrate habitat protection and protected species management
into the fishery management process should be the focus of NOAA

‘The Northeast Region (NER) of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), commonly called NOAA Fisheries, includes the
Northeast Fisheries Center.

*Habitat Conservation Policy for National Marine Fisheries
Service. Federal Register, Vol. 48. No. 228, p. 53142 -53147,
November 25, 1983.

Preceding-page blank i



Page 87

68 | 88 | £8 l 98
OL Lb -L OLL bo LOLL vb tLodg

Ltpttipitpiifiifitt,tipisprifittorrf;s1 ttt

“sinniOn abanis ' , '

IRR RRRORIOIOK
SYI1L3IN LNSYHND

IRR

* xX
SAAAYNS DIHdVYDOUGAH

* *
ATVOSAVOU"d DOS

FERRER RRRK OK
LOASNVYL DOS
*

KKK KK KK KKK KKK K KX
ONMdNVS JIVOSGVOUs

OK OK OK OK OK ORK OK OK OK OK OKK OK OK OK OK
ONMdNVS ALVOMNd4d

+ GO

FINGAHIS AJAYNS
AGNLS AYSAAODAY ALIS dAING ATIA-?L

YALYVNOD Yad SNOL LAM NOITIIW




INTRODUCTION

In April 1990, the National Marine Fisheries Service's
(NMFS) Northeast Region formed the NMFS Northeast
Environmental Council“Environmental Council”). One of
the activities describéd in the Environmental Council's
charter is to “conduct workshops on key habitat issues of
.”. The first of these workshops was held

proptem of quantifying living marine resource losses result-
inj aa habitat degradation. :

is document summarizes the workshop and does not
constitute a comprehensive record of all discussions. It is
composed of three primary sections: (1) “Synopsis of
Presentations and Discussions”; (2) “Apparent Needs and
Proposed Actions”, and (3) “Appendices” which contain
most of the overheads and handouts at the workshop.¢The
agenda for the workshop is Appendix A. The patticipassTHD
the workshop are listed in Appendix B. Each participant was
provided an issue paper (Appendix C) as background for the
presentations and discussions.

SYNOPSIS OF PRESENTATIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS

OVERVIEW

M. Ingham, Chair of the Environmental Council, intro-
duced the members of the Council to the participants,
presented the function and charter of the Council, and
reviewed the status of the Council’s first nine projects
(Appendix D).

R. Roe, NMFS Northeast Regional Director, described
the awakening of habitat/resource loss concerns in NMFS
and in the regional fishery management councils. The
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(“Magnuson Act”), as amended in 1983, required that
stronger habitat sections be written into fishery management
plans (FMP), but left NMFS to function ina purely advisory
capacity. Within those limitations, the NMFS Northeast
Region: (1) developed a Northeast Environmental Policy
(Appendices E and F); (2) worked with the regional fishery
management councils to improve habitat sections of FMPs;
(3) created the Environmental Council to interface and
foster collaboration between the NMFS Northeast Regional
Operations Office (management) and the NMFS Northeast
Fisheries Science Center (research); and (4) established a
workshop series on fishery habitat issues, modeled after the
stock assessment workshops of the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center.

The Magnuson Act, as amended in 1990, emphasizes
the importance of habitat degradation and strengthens the
regional fishery management councils’ authority to com-
ment on any activity proposed by any state or federal agency
which may affect the habitat of a fishery resource under its

Page 1

jurisdiction. In specific, the amended Magnuson Act allows
the regional fishery management councils to comment on
activities that may affect fishery habitats, and requires them
tocomment on activities that “substantially affect the habitat
of anadromous species under their jurisdiction.” The
amended Magnuson Act also specifies that any federal
agency receiving written comments shall, within 45 days,
provide a detailed response, including a description of
measures being considered for mitigating or offsetting po-
tential habitat effects. In this light, the NMFS Northeast
Regional Director has directed the Environmental Council
to develop a cooperative approach to quantifying resource
loss through habitat degradation, andto increase interagency
appreciation of the importance of fishery habitat as recog-
nized by the amended Magnuson Act (Appendix G).

J. Pearce, Acting NMFS Northeast Science and Re-
search Director, presented an overview of coastal pollution
problems with a focus on the Northeast. The principal cause
of U.S. coastal pollution is the relative growth of population
and industry within the 50-mile coastal band. However, a
considerable source of coastal pollution often can be trans-
ported from far inland by air and water, including non-point-
source nitrogen and phosphorous from farmland and lawns.
Pearce noted that traditional scientific approaches to coastal
marine pollution problems have several shortcomings: (1)
too narrow geographic and ecological perspective, (2) fail-
ure to consider existing data and information carefully
before launching new field and laboratory studies; and (3)
reporting results in language understood only by other
scientists, thus failing to communicate with managers and
regulators. In conclusion, Pearce forecast that continuing
depletion of wild fish stocks will eventually shift society to
mariculture to provide seafood, which is dependent upon
clean waters and healthy estuaries. In meeting this require-
ment, considering the myriad multiple uses of the coastal
zone, activities to protect and restore the Northeast’s coastal
waters need to grow through cooperation and commitment
(Appendix H).

J. O'Reilly, ecologist with the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, described a nearly completed study of the
natural recovery and restoration of the habitats and biota
surrounding the 12-Mile (sewage sludge) Dumpsite after
cessation of dumping at the New York Bight site. Early
results at three stations (i.e., polluted, slightly affected, and
unaffected) show a gradual return to a species complex and
to trace metal and carbon levels in surface sediments more
representative of unaffected coastal sites. This convergence
apparently is occurring for other variables also, but more
slowly. The final results of the study will be reported at a
symposium on “Changes in Habitats and Biota at the 12-
Mile Dumpsite during and following Cessation of Sewage
Sludge Disposal” on June 18 and 19, 1991, at Long Branch,
New Jersey (Appendix I).

J. Paul, Program Manager for the near-coastal marine
component of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Pro-
gram (EMAP), described the nationwide EMAP, focusing




Page 73

processes which will lead to measurements of appropriate
variables must understand that their measurements of individual
species should be transferable to managing large communities and
populations of individual species, and species complexes.
Numerous would suggest that there are great values in generic
information which can be used or transferred from one situation
to another.

Probably the first, and perhaps most important steps would
have to do with developing appropriate criteria and standards for
environments. Groups such as the American Fisheries Society
(AFS) could dedicate themselves to no more important issue at the
moment than developing a consensus on the importance of certain
variables and establishing the standards that would be necessary
to manage by. The actual management process would probably
continue to be based upon models or calculations that are
presently involved in developing fish assessments. In addition
to typical fisheries stock information, however, the modelers and
assessment scientists must build into their calculations the
environmental variables which concensus suggests are "key" to
fish stocks.


Page 82

68 88 48 98 G8 v8 €8 728 18 O08 6L BL LL OL GL HL EL ZL

|

YVaA

AD HG;

£861 YaaWF903C LE
Q4SV390 ONIdWING

ONIdWNG 39GN1S EE

SNOL LIM 40 SNOITIIN


This TM series is used for documentation and timely.communication of preliminary results,
interim reports, or special purpose information, and has not undergone external scientific
review.

Quantifying Resource Loss
through Habitat Degradation:
Proceedings of the First NMFS
Northeast Environmental Workshop,
March 13-14, 1991,
Gloucester, Massachusetts

Robert J. Pawlowski‘ and Merton C. Ingham?

‘Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Serv., Gloucester, MA 01930
?Narragansett Lab., National Marine Fisheries Serv., Narragansett, RI 02882

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Rockwell A. Schnabel, Acting Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John A. Knauss, Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
William W. Fox, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
Northeast Region
Northeast Regional Operations Office
Gloucester, Massachusetts

February 1992

REPRODUCED BY:
nme of Cor

al Information

t ie e
‘Springfield, Virginia 22164 ‘|



Page 108

SEPA >

EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS

® Establish and Conduct an Ecological
Research Program

@ Initiate Monitoring Activities that Assess
Ecological Status and Trends

® Develop Ecological Indicators that Form a
Basis for Ecological Criteria and Stand-
ards

@ Provide a National Focal Point for Ecolog-
ical Research

EMAP- /


Page 131

the Gulf

of
Maine § Sustaining
Maine Our

Nova Scotia

Massachusetts Common

New Brunswick

New Hampshire Her itage

COMPILED BY:
Katrina Van Dusen and Anne C. Johnson Hayden
Maine State Planning Office
November 1989




Page 109

SEPA
WHAT IS EMAP?

Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program

Includes Multiple Ecosystems:

-- Agro-ecosystems

-- Forests

-- Inland Waters (streams, rivers, lakes)

-- Drylands/range lands

-- Wetlands (inland and coastal)

-- Near Coastal (estuaries, coastal waters)
-- Great Lakes

Characteristics to be monitored

-- Ecological condition/status

-- Trends/change in status

-- Factors that affect ecological status

Scale of assessments
-- Regional/national
-- Long-term

Involved federal program

-- EPA -- USDA
- NOAA -- NSF
-- USGS -- DOE
-- FWS -- NASA

+)



Page 30

FUNCTIO. ni

Advise Regional Director (NER) and Science & Research
Director (NEC) on issues, problems and policies related to the
effects of habitat loss or environmental degradation on living
marine resources.


Page 89

LNNOD 1VLOL
WNICILSO1D
OIWdIA
WHOAITOD
VIdaLOVA

S3LVuY
-NOILV.LNAWIGAS

SALVY
-NOILdIINSNOS
-N3JDAXO GAgvsAs

YAHLO

ALIMagidous

4dZiS NIVYD

SOILSIHALOVYVHS

NOSHV) DINVDYHO 1VLOL
SLNAINDId TIAHdOYO THD
dog LN3AWIGSS
TWILNALOd XOG3Y

$31I40ud Hd ‘3qdIs1NS
SLNVNIANVLNOS SINVDYO

STVLAIN AAVSH

AYLSIINAHS

(SLNAINIGAS) LV.LIGWH


Page 84

ALIS 90L OL SALSVM JDVMGS LYAAIC OL NOISIDAG ALVNIWAS

SALIS GaSOdOUd YAHLO NI SASNOdS3Y ONILIIGAdd NI 1N4daSN
LNAWaLVav GNV SNIGVOT NOILN110d OL SASNOdS4¥Y T1400

ASH GNV NISV@ “9 NI NOILATIOd ADWMaS 40 3LV4 SANIWYALIG
Y3AId GNV 3Dd3ud WO NOILVNINNWLNOD g5ani1s aLVaNniag
DNIHSISTISHS YO4 GANadO3Y 3d NWO VaeV N3HM ANIWd3aLad

$a10adS 3DYNOSAY JO NOILWNIINVLNOO GNV
‘'aSvasia ‘Laid ‘JONVGNNAY ‘NOILNAIY.LSIC NI SJDNWHD SS3ISSV

SLV.LISWH GALNT1IOd-S9VMASs 40
AYAAOD3Y 4O ALVY ONV ‘LNALX3 “ASNOdS34 AHL LNSINND0G

S3AILOdrdO AGNLS








Dayton, P. 1986. Cumulative impacts in the marine realm. In:
Proceedings of the Workshop on Cumulative Environmental
Effects: A Binational Perspective. Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council and the U.S. National Research
Council Board on Basic Biology. Ottawa. pp. 79-85.

Dickert, T. and A. Tuttle. 1985. Cumulative impact assessment
in environmental planning; a coastal wetland watershed
example. Env. Impact Ass. Rev. 5:37-64.

Engel, D. 1988. The effect of biological variability on
monitoring strategies: metallothioneins as an example.
Water Resour. Bull. 24 (5):981-7.

Edwards, S. 1989. Estimates of future demographic changes in
the coastal zone. Coastal Mgmt. 17:229-40.

Fay, C., R. Neves, and G. Pardue. 1983. Species Profiles: Life
Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes
and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS-82/11.8. Slidell, LA. 37 pp.

Heatwole, C., and N. West. 1985. Shorefront fishing in New York
city. Geograph. Rev. 75(3):245-64.

Hobson, E. and J. Chess. 1987. Diel movements of resident and
transient zooplankters above lagoon reefs at Enewetak Atoll,
Marshall Islands. Pac. Sci. 40(1-4):7-26.

Katz, C., R. Zajac, and R. Whitlatch. 1991. The influence of
nonlethal and lethal foraging on the persistence of
predator~prey relationships. Manuscript submitted to Amer.

Nat., 19 pp.

Konasewich, D., P. Chapman, E. Gerencher, G. Vigers and N.
Treloar. 1982. Effects, Pathways, Processes, and
Transformation of Puget Sound Contaminants of Concern. NOAA
Tech. Memo. OMPA-20, Boulder, CO. 357 pp.

Liddle, M. 1991. Recreation ecology: effects of trampling on
plants and corals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6:13~-7.

Malins, D., B. McCain, D. Brown, A. Sparks, H. Hodgins, and S.
Chan. 1982. Chemical contaminants and abnormalities in
fish and invertebrates from Puget Sound. NOAA Tech. Memo.
OMPA-19, Boulder, CO. 168 pp.

Malins, D.,A. Jensen, and M. Moore. 1988. Aquatic Toxicology.
Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. 444 pp.


Page 36
53142

_ - —

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

(Docket No. 31028-211)

Habitat Conservation; Policy tor.
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)

AGENCY: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of effective NMFS
habitat conservation policy.

summary: NOAA issues a policy for the
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) which provides a focus for
NMFS’ habitat conservation activities.
while at the same time integrating
habitat conservation considerations
throughout the major programs and
activities of the Agency. The policy also
encourages greater participation by the
Regional Fishery Management Councils.
the States and others in habitat
conservation matters. This action is
necessary in order to allow NMFS to
focus its habitat conservation activities
on those species for which NMFS is
primarily responsible or which are the
subject of a NMFS program. The effect
of this policy will be to make NMFS"
habitat conservation activities more
responsive to the goals and objectives of
the Agency as set forth in the NMFS
Strategic Plan. and to allow priorities to
be set and defended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 21, 1983.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Herbert L. Blatt, Chief. Policy Group.
NMFS. 202-653-7551. or Kenneth R.
Roberts, Chief, Habitat Conservation
Division, NMFS 202-634-7490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NMFS has primary Federal
responsiblity for the conservation,
management. and development of iiving
marine resources and for the protection
of certain marine mammais and
endangered species under numerous
Federal laws. The Agency also has
responsibilities co the U.S. commercial
and marine recreational fishing industry,
including fishermen. and to the States
and the general public. These
responsibilities are inherent in NMFS"
mussion which is “To achieve a
continued optimum uulization of living
marine resoures for the benefit of the
Nation.” NMFS is vitally concerned
about the habitats that support living
marine fesources since the well-being of
these resources and the fishing industry
depends upon-healthy and productive
habitats.

The U.S. commercial and manne
recreational fishing industry makes an
:mportant contribution to the Nation's
economy. The commercial fishing
segment of the industry produces food
and industrial goods that contr:bute $7
billion annuaily to the gross national
product. Including fishing vessels and
shoreside businesses. the commercial
fishing segment employs nearly 300.000
persons. Marine recreational fishing
provides opportunities for recreation as
weil as a substanual quantity of food for
15 to 20 million anglers in the United
States. Catch by marine recreational
fishermen accounts for an estimated 30
to 35 percent of the total U.S. finfish
harvest used for food. Expenditures by
these fishermen. the value of associated
industries (such as tackle. boat. and
trailer manufacturers, and the party and
charter boat industries}, and the value of
the recreational fishing experience itself
are significant components of the U.S.
economy. Direct expenditures by marine
recreational fishermen are estimated to
be at least S5 billion annually. not to
mention the indirect economic impacts
generated from these expenditures.

Marine mammals and endangered
species are also important to the Nation
in terms of their domestic and
international significance—aesthetic,
recreational, ecological and economic.

Coastal and estuarine areas and their
associated wetlands are vitally
important as spawning and nursery
grounds for both commercial and marine
recreational fishery resources.
Approximately two-thirds of our
important fishery resources depend
upon these areas which also serve as
habitat for many species of marine
mammals and endangered species.
However, population shifts to coastal
areas and associated industrial and
municipal expansion have accelerated
competition for use of the same habitats.
By 1990. 75 percent of the U.S.
population will live within 50 miles of
the coastlines. Increasing efforts to
develop new or alternate sources of
energy are further stressing important
living marine resource habitats. As a
result. these habitats have been
substantially reduced and continue to
suffer the adverse effects of dredging,
filling, coastal construction, energy
development, poilution. waste disposal.
and other human-relatd activities. In the
case of wetlands. from 1954 to 1978
there was a average annual loss of
104,000 acres which was a ten-fold
annual increase in acreage lost between
1780 and 1954.

Recognizing the importance of habitat
to the management and conservation of
living marine resources, NMFS proposed
a new habitat conservation policy for

the Agency. The notice of proposed
policy, published in the Federal Register
on July 19, 1983 (no. 139), at 48 FR 32847.
solicited public comments.

Response to Public Comments

During the comment period. twenty-
five letters were received from other
Federal agencies. State governments.
Regional Fishery Managemeat Councils,
and organizations representing millions
of citizens. The commenters, in general,
supported the proposed policy, stating it
is long overdue and commending the
approach. However, certain of the
commenters had specific concerns
which are set forth below along with
NMFS' response.

Policy

Comment: implicit in the goal and
mission statement of NMFS is the
assumption that populations concerned
would be usable.This should be
clarified.

Response: NMFS agrees that the
policy should make clear that the
habitat conservation activities of the
agency are to maintain or enhance the
capability of the environment to. among
other things. produce fish and shellfish
that are safe and wholesome. The
wording has been amended accordingly.

Comment: Several commenters
caution against too narrowly defining
scope of policy. {t should signify the
need to give priority altention to those
species for which direct managment
presently is Agency responsibility and it
should c/ear/y state that NMFS has
stewardship responsibility for all living
marine resources under Federal
jurisdiction.

Response: NMFS does not believe the
language needs modification. While
NMES has overall responsibilty for
living marine resources, it is necessary
to focus NMFS" habitat conservation
activities on those resources ovef which
it can influence management regimes
throughout the range of the species.
NMFS' activities with respect to one
species could benefit other species that
depend ona particular habitat.

Policy Framework

Comment: Suggest clarifying
paragraph 1, Policy Framework. to
indicate NMFS also has'management
responsibility for species for which no
Fishery Management Plans are planned.
such as squid or herring in the Gulf of
Mexico. This could be accomplished by
rewording clause “(1) covered or to be
covered” to “(1} covered or subject to
being covered.”

Response: For clarity, NMFS agrees to
suggested change.


Page 48

in each biogeographic area. Greater coordination between habitat
research and conservation programs will result in comprehensive
products based on the best scientific information available. NER
will use these products to evaluate environmental threats and
develop position statements. NER will negotiate more effective
interagency agreements and develop improved working arrangements
with other agencies. This will allow NER to address
environmental issues more comprehensively, rather than on an
individual-project, site-specific, and often ad-hoc basis.


Page 117

INDICATOR SELECTION
STRATEGY

Define issues and endpoints of
concern

Develop conceptual model

Identify candidate indicators
using the model

Screen and classify indicators
according to evaluation criteria

Conduct indicator testing and
evaluation to define core
indicators

Re-evaluate all of the above
periodically


Page 53

Appendix H
Environmental Quality and Resource Health -- Quantifying Resource Loss




Page 49

Appendix G
1990 Fishery-Habitat-Related Amendments to the Magnuson Act




Page 88

ALICIYNL

SLNIIYLAN

(SHALJIN GAYOOW ONISN) Adis 1nNs
S.LNAINAYNSVWS3IN LN3YYNSD Hd
ALINIIWS ALINIIVS

AYNLVYsAdWSAL AYNLVeadWsL

N4DAXO G3ATOSSIO NADAXO G3AATOSSIC

NINN109 YALVM YALVM IWOLLO®

(WALVM) LVLISVH


Page 43

Appendix F
NMFS Northeast Environmental Policy

“Preceding page blank

aa |
t


Page 129

AGREEMENT ON
CONSERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
OF THE GULF OF MAINE
BETWEEN

THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE BORDERING STATES AND PROVINCES

The Governments of Maine, Massachusetts, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, Nova
Scotia, as Parties to this Agreement and;

Considering that the shoreline, seabed, waters and associated natural resources of the
Gulf of Maine region, including Georges Bank and the Bay of Fundy, constitute precious
public natural resources shared by the contiguous States and Provinces and;

Considering that the natural resources of the Gulf of Maine are interconnected and
form part of an overall ecosystem that transcends political boundaries and;

Considering that the sustainable development and use of these resources for
recreational and aesthetic enjoyment activities as well as fish and wildlife habitat is
dependent on the ecological integrity of the Gulf ecosystem and;

Considering that the planning and management of human activities which may affect
the Gulf ecosystem should recognize and be based upon an understanding of the systems’
integrity and;

Considering that the Parties to this agreement recognize a shared duty to protect and
conserve the renewable and non-renewable resources of the Gulf for the use, benefit and
enjoyment of all their citizens, including generations yet to come and;

Considering that the most effective means of protecting, conserving and managing
the region’s resources is through the cooperative pursuit of consistent policies, initiatives
and programs and;

Considering that studies conducted by National, State and Provincial governments
and other agencies have found that, without prudent management, the future development
and use of the Gulf resources may have significant adverse impacts on the environment,
economy, and general welfare of the Parties and have agreed to the following:

|Pr Preceding page bia blank


IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Phased approach
Estuaries first
Wetlands and Great Lakes

Coastal waters

Page 113


Page 122

GOALS OF FY 1990
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

@ Test and evaluate indicators

@ Identify and resolve logistical
problems

@ Standardize sampling and
processing methods

® Evaluate alternative sampling
designs and refine study design

@ Develop analysis procedures

@ Demonstrate the value of the
EMAP assessment approach


Page 127

Appendix K
Intergovernmental Agreement for Initiating, and Executive Summary of Document for
Planning the Activities of, the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

‘Preceding page blank


Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .....
Synopsis of Presentations and Discussions
Overview ...
Panel No. 1: Activities and Interests of Councils and Commissions in
Expanding Habitat Protection ..

Panel No. 2: Research Information on Amounts and Mechanisms of
Resource and Habitat Losses...

Panel No. 3: Habitat Loss, Mitigation, and Restoration
Concluding Discussions
Needs and Proposed Actions

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Agenda for First NMFS Northeast Environmental Workshop
Appendix B. _ List of Participants for First NMFS Northeast Environmental Workshop
Appendix C. NMFS Northeast Environmental Council Issue Paper .......
Appendix D. Overheads for Introduction to NMFS Northeast Environmental Council
Appendix E. NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy ...
Appendix F. NMFS Northeast Environmental Policy
Appendix G. 1990 Fishery-Habitat-Related Amendments to the Magnuson Act
Appendix H. Environmental Quality and Resource Health -- Quantifying Resource
Appendix I. | Overheads for Review of 12-Mile Dumpsite Recovery Study ..
Appendix J. | Handout and Overheads for Review of the Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program
Appendix K. Intergovernmental Agreement for Initiating, and Executive Summary of Document

for Planning the Activities of, the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
Appendix L. Draft Cooperative Strategy for Quantifying Resource Losses Due to

Habitat Loss or Degradation...

127

+ 135

Preceding Page Blank


Page 106


Page 66

instance in bivalves, e.g., the oyster, it is necessary to
understand fully how seasonal cycles come to bear on the organism
and may influence total metal concentrations in the animals, as
well as the patent nature of the metallothioneining response. In
certain decapod crustaceans, the blue crab, total metal
concentrations have been shown to be significantly altered by the
moult cycle which most decapods pass through on a seasonal basis.
Environmental managers, that are assessing the information
forthcoming from long-term biological effects monitoring, must be
aware of such variability, especially as it may be induced by
seasonal (exogenous) phenomena or by endogenous rhythms that are
inherent in day-to-day physiological activities, growth, and
reproduction.

From the foregoing, it is obviously important to look at
responses of organisms seasonally (Munro, et al, 1990). This
suggests that scientists, developing information on environmental
effects, must be cautious in interpreting data in the sense that
time may profoundly alter responses.

All of the foregoing narrative has tended to be concerned
with the issue of contaminants in the environment. This is
appropriate since much of the concern of present day
environmentalists and fishery habitat managers has been related
to the status of contaminants in coastal waters. Another area of
considerable concern, however, has to do with the disruption of
conditions such that wetlands, riparian situations, and other
aquatic habitats, of importance to marine organisms, are
despoiled in some way. Literally hundreds of papers have been
written in regard to the possible effects of dredging, spoiling,
bulkheading, and other activities associated with the development
of coastal areas and ports and harbors. In many instances such
physical degradation is tied closely to contaminants; highly
contaminated harbor sediments may be dredged to deepen channels
and taken offshore or to other harbor areas for disposal. There
has been a high level of supposition that these "introduced
contaminants" may be environmentally harmful to the areas to
which they are taken. There have been mechanisms, e.g., the
capping of contaminated dredged materials, recommended for
preventing the spread of habitat contaminants via physical
development in the environment (Bokuniewicz, 1983). Extensive
work has been done using side scan SONAR and precision bathymetry
to develop the "footprints" that result when solid wastes are
disposed of at sea, and thus provide a basis for physical
coverups.

Very recently, marine scientists have begun to look at the
consequences of relatively minor development or even the effects
of human footprints. Liddle (1991) has authored a paper in which
he previews the relatively extensive literature having to do with
human "trampling" on vegetation and coral reefs. Ecologists
concerned with recreational uses of coral reefs have seen that


Page 52

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS

(a) Required Provisions.--Any fishery management plan which is
prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any
fishery, shall--

(7) include readily available information regarding the
significance of habitat to the fishery and assessment as to
the effects which changes to that habitat may have upon the
fishery;

SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY
(e) FISHERIES RESEARCH

(2) The areas of research referred to in paragraph (1) are as
follows:

(A) Research to support fishery conservation and management,
including research on the economics of fisheries and
biological research concerning the interdependence of
fisheries or stocks of fish, the impact of pollution on
populations of fish, the impact of wetland and estuarine
degradation, and other matters bearing upon the abundance
and availability of fish.


Overview

This document presents an overview of the rationale, goals, and primary elements of the En-
vironmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), which represents a long-term com-
mitment to assess and document periodically the condition of the Nation’s ecological resourc-
es. EMAP is being designed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of
Research and Development. The program will serve a wide spectrum of users: decision-makers
who require information to set environmental policy; program managers who must assign pri-
orities to research and monitoring projects; scientists who desire a broader understanding of
ecosystems; and managers and analysts who require an objective basis for evaluating the effec-
tiveness of the Nation’s environmental policies.

Page 101

Monitoring, Regulatory, & Policy Needs

Environmental regulatory programs have been estimated to
cost more than $70 billion annually, yet the means to assess
their effect on the environment over the long term do not ex-
ist. While regulatory programs are based upon our best un-
derstanding of the environment at the time of their develop-
ment, it is critical that long-term monitoring programs be in
place to confirm the effectiveness of these programs in
achieving their environmental goals and to corroborate the
science upon which they are based.

The EPA, the U.S. Congress, and private environmental or-
ganizations have long recognized the need to improve our
ability to document the condition of our environment. Con-
gressional hearings in 1984 on the National Environmental
Monitoring Improvement Act concluded that, despite consid-
erable expenditures on monitoring, federal agencies could as-
sess neither the status of ecological resources nor the overall
progress toward legally-mandated goals of mitigating or pre-
venting adverse ecological effects. In the last decade, articles
and editorials in professional journals of the environmental
sciences have repeatedly called for the collection of more rel-
evant and comparable ecological data and easy access to
those data for the research community.

Affirming the existence of a major gap in our environmen-
tal data and recognizing the broad base of support for better
environmental monitoring, the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) recommended in 1988 that EPA initiate a program that
would monitor ecological status and trends, as well as devel-
op innovative methods for anticipating emerging problems
before they reach crisis proportions. EPA was encouraged to
become more active in ecological monitoring because its reg-
ulatory responsibilities require quantitative, scientific assess-
ments of the complex effects of pollutants on ecosystems.
EMAP is being initiated in 1990 by EPA in response to these
recommendations.

Preceding page blank

EMAP’s Purpose

EMAP is being designed to monitor indicators of the condi-
tion of our Nation’s ecological resources. Specifically, EMAP
is intended to respond to the growing demand for informa-
tion characterizing the condition of our environment and the
type and location of changes in our environment. Simultane-
ous monitoring of pollutants and environmental changes will
allow us to identify likely causes of adverse changes. When
fully implemented, EMAP will answer the following ques-
tions:

Q What is the current status, extent, and geograph-
ic distribution of our ecological resources (e.g.,
estuaries, lakes, streams, wetlands, forests, grass-
lands, deserts)?

Q_ What proportions of these resources are degrad-
ing or improving, where, and at what rate?

Q > Whatare the'likely causes of adverse effects?

Q Are adversely-affected ecosystems responding as
expected to control and mitigation programs?

EMAP will provide the Administrator, the Congress, and
the public with statistical data summaries and periodic inter-
pretive reports on ecological status and trends. Because
sound decision-making must consider the uncertainty asso-
ciated with quantitative information, all EMAP status and
trends estimates will include statistically-rigorous confidence
limits.

Assessments of changes in our Nation’s ecological re-
source conditions require data on large geographic scales
collected over long periods of time. For national assessments,
comparability of data among geographic regions (e.g., the
Northeast, Southeast, and West) and over extended periods is


Page 26

3) Direct a new bioenvironmental research group to
study the connection between habitat degradation and
resource loss. Use mesocosm experiments (perhaps the
URI MERL tanks through our Cooperative Marine Education
and Research agreement) to identify basic processes and
relationships. Pursue field work, as a follow-up to
laboratory experiments, to confirm real-world
situations.


Page 22

Another case of resource loss because of bottom water
hypoxia is evolving in western Long Island Sound, but no
quantitative estimate of the resource loss is available at this
time. The hypoxia in this situation is caused largely by
discharges of nutrients from 44 sewage treatment plants ringing
the western Sound. The cost to remove the nutrients from the
discharges has been set at six billion dollars. (Source: New
York Times, 9/7/90)

A well-documented event involving resource losses because of
point-source pollution is the kepone contamination of the James
River, a section of the Chesapeake Bay, which resulted ina
closure or seasonal closure for bluefish, Atlantic croaker,
American eel, striped bass, and weakfish, from 1976 through 1988.
The estimated revenue losses for 1976 (alone) are 0.8 million
dollars at the harvester level, and 2.2 million dollars at retail
level (Losses to Fishing and Related James River Industries,
unpublished report, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 1982)

Perhaps of greater magnitude and greater concern are the
small losses which occur in thousands of locations throughout the
coastal and estuarine waters of the Northeast. These losses can
result from point-source pollution, non-point-source pollution or
small-scale habitat destruction such as that resulting from
filling and bulkheading.

An example of resource losses of this sort is the gradual
increase in acreage closed to shellfishing because of sewage or
septic system contamination from Maine to Virginia. Although the
shellfish in question have not been killed by the contaminants,
they are too contaminated to be safely consumed. The sum of

these losses in terms of shellfish or dollar value has not been
determined, but could be.

In 1985 (the most recent year summarized) 24% of the
estuarine shellfishing waters of the Northeast Region (Virginia-
Maine), amounting to 591,340 acres, was closed to shellfishing.
An additional 5% (147,154 acres) was restricted to harvest only
if depuration was used to purify the shellfish. Three percent
(84,117 acres) was conditionally approved for harvest only when
water quality was acceptable. The situation described by these
statistics is not as encouraging as it appears, because, "Much of
the approved area is not productive because of extreme
salinities, or lack of suitable depth, substrate, or habitat for
molluscan shellfish."

(Source: The quality of shellfish growing water on the East
Coast of the United States. NOAA/OMA/OAD. March 1989.)

Raritan Bay was the first large area closed to shellfishing
in the Northeast, when pollution and public health concerns
forced its closure in the 1920's. At that time the bay was
yielding about 400,000 bushels of oysters a year and about
100,000 bushels of hard clams. Newspapers at the time carried
many stories about the polluted Raritan Bay oysters and the
typhoid they transmitted to people. As a consequence, sales of


establish design requirements for the integrated characteriza-
tion including acceptance criteria for baseline data, consis-
tent classification detail and accuracy, and suitable spatial
and temporal resolution to distinguish landscape features of
particular interest.

Activities

The design of the characterization plan and the evaluation
of potential characterization techniques are in progress. A

rototype methodology for high-resolution characterization
fas been developed. Current activities include evaluating a
range of methods, from landscape ecology to quantitative,
multistage remote sensing (combined satellite and aerial pho-
tography) in widely different terrain types. EMAP characteri-
zation will begin in 1990 at approximately 800 sites, or
about one-fourth of the 3,000 selected for field sampling.

Near-Coastal Demonstration Project

Purpose

Information obtained from the near-coastal demonstration
project will be used to refine the EMAP design, and the study
itself will serve as a model for implementing EMAP projects
in other study areas and types of ecosystems.

The demonstration project has five goals:

QO Evaluate the utility, sensitivity, and applicability
of the EMAP near-coastal indicators on a regional
scale;

Q Determine the effectiveness of the EMAP network
design for quantifying the extent and magnitude
of pollution problems in the near-coastal environ-
ment;

Q_ Demonstrate the usefulness of results for plan-
ning, Priority-settng, and determining the
effectiveness of pollution control actions;

Q__ Develop standardized methods for indicator
measurements that can be transferred to other
study areas and made available for other
monitoring efforts; and

Q Identify and resolve logistical issues associated
. with implementing the network design.

Strategy

The strategy for accomplishing the above tasks is to work
closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration’s National Status and Trends Program to field-test the
near-coastal indicators and network design through a demon-
stration study in the estuaries and coastal wetlands of the
Mid-Atlantic area of the United States, Estuaries were select-
ed because their natural circulation patterns concentrate and

Page 105

retain pollutants. Estuaries and coastal wetlands are also
spawning and nursery grounds for many valued living re-
sources, and estuarine watersheds receive a large proportion
of the pollutants discharged to the Nation’s waterways. The
Mid-Atlantic study area was chosen because adverse pollu-
tant impacts are evident; contaminants are present in the wa-
ter, sediments, and biota; the vitality of many organisms is re-
portedly threatened; and seven of the area's larger estuaries
are included in EPA’s National Estuary Program.

Activities

During 1989, the major environmental problems associat-
ed with near-coastal systems were identified: eutrophication,
contamination, habitat modification, and the cumulative im-
pact of multiple stressors. A set of response, exposure, and
stressor indicators applicable to each problem is to be identi-
fied, based on current understanding of how various environ-
mental stressors affect ecosystem processes and biota. Near-
coastal ecosystems have been classified for monitoring and
assessment based on their physical and chemical characteris-
tics and their susceptibility to environmental stressors. A
monitoring network design that is compatible with the EMAP
design is being developed. Several logistical and technical
questions regarding the EMAP near-coastal project remain,
including:

Q_> What set of indicators will be measured?

Q_ What specific methods will be used to sample
each indicator?

Q_ Will all indicators be measured at all sampling
sites or can a sampling plan be developed that re-
quires measurement of costly indicators only at
selected sites? and

Q_ To what degree should sources of variation be
measured and accounted for in the network
design?

The near-coastal demonstration project will be conducted
in the estuaries and coastal wetlands of the mid-Atlantic area
of the United States (from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod) during
mid-1990. A report on the results of the project will be pre-
pared in 1991.

Information Contact

EMAP is planned and managed by ORD’s Office of Model-
ing, Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance (OMMSQA).
Inquiries may be directed to:

EMAP Director
ORD/OMMSQA (RD-680)
U.S. EPA

Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5767

Fax: (202) 252-0929





Page 115

SAMPLING DESIGN

Consistent with overall EMAP design

Four major elements

-- Index period

-- Regionalization

-- Classification

-- Statistical design

Index Period -- A time when indicators
are expected to show the greatest
response to pollution

Regionalization -- subdivision into regions
having similar ecological properties and
constituting reasonable reporting units

Classification -- organization into
resource types to facilitate sampling and
interpretation

Statistical Design -- the specific approach
used for selecting sampling locations




Page 58

Biological Services Program, implemented such a classification
scheme well over a decade ago. Based upon several national
interagency meetings, the original protocols were developed and
promulgated widely. Basically the DOI scheme involved major
ecological systems such as marine, estuarine, riverine, and
lacustrine. The marine and estuarine systems had subsystems
headed subtidal and intertidal. Within subsystems, classes were
established based on substrate material and vegetative life
forms. For instance intertidal areas could be described as
having rock bottom consisting of bedrock, boulders or stones, or
any one of five other classes such as unconsolidated bottom or
unconsolidated shore or reefs. Vegetation was used to define the
vegetative components and included categories such as aquatic
beds, emerging wetlands, shrub-scrub wetlands, etc. This
classification system was described by Cowardian et al. (1979).
Again, the classification scheme lends itself to aerial
photography as well as to certain remote sensing efforts using
satellites. The DOI began a program to classify wetlands
throughout the United States; again, details are described in
Cowardian (1979).

In addition to developing classifications of coastal
wetlands, and coastal zone and riverine situations leading to
coastal habitats, the DOI felt it was important to develop
species profiles for key marine fishes and invertebrates.

The species profiles presented brief life histories and
"environmental requirements" of key species (for instance, see
Fay et al, 1983). The DOI believes that by evaluating the
present status of habitats (habitat classification) it becomes
possible to relate the environmental requirements of important
coastal fishes and invertebrates to such habitats. In theory
this is a good concept but it is one that must be improved upon.
The environmental or habitat requirements of any fish, even
relatively sedentary forms such as the flounders, can be
extremely complex, often involving hundreds of variables. To
determine the fitness of a habitat to accommodate the needs or
requirements of a fish species, it is necessary to understand
these variables and the numerous subtle cues and arcane couplings
which exist between resource species, their physical habits, and
each other, as well as the biota they depend on for forage or
shelter.

Beyond looking at the classifications of habitat uses, and
of wetlands and coastal waters, according to certain vegetative
or physical characteristics, NOAA has recently developed a report
on a proposed classification system based on analyses of
salinities preferred by a range of marine species (Bulger, et
al., 1990). The classification was conducted after data were
complied and analyzed on the reported salinity ranges of 370
species and life-history combinations. The work is apropos
salinity variation in the Mid-Atlantic region and resulted in
five somewhat overlapping salinity zones. Such information will


Page 112

SCOPE OF EMAP-NC

@ Estuarine and coastal wetlands
@ Estuaries
® Coastal waters

® Great Lakes


Page 76

McIntyre, A. and J. Pearce. 1980. Biological Effects of marine
Pollution and the Problems of Monitoring. International
Council ror the Exploration of the Sea. Rapports et Proces-
Verbaux des Reunions. Copenhagen. Vol. 179. 346 pp.

Lam, and A. Scott. 1990. Reproductive Seasonality
»sts: Environmental Influences. CRC Press, Inc.
on, FL. 272 pp.

NOAA. 1991. C2M Information Exchange: A Federal-State
Partiersnip in the Management of Coastal and Marine
Resources. Coastal Zone Information Center, Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Managmeent, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Washington, DC. pp. 72.

Odum, Howard T. 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and
information. Sci. 242:1132-8.

Pearson, W., S. Miller, J. Blaylock, and B. Olla. 1981la.
Detecti of the water-soluble fraction of crude oil by the
blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Mar. Env. Res. 5:3-11.

Pearson, W., P. Sugarman, D. Woodruff, and B. Olla. 1981b.

Impai nt of the chemosensory antennular flicking response
in the ngeness crab, Cancer magister, by petroleum
hydre sons. Fish. Bull. 79:641-7.

Pearson, W., D. Woodruff, and P. Johnson. 1990. Effects of
Petroleum contaminated waterways on spawning migration of
Pacific salmon Phase I. Laboratory Studies. In: Noaa Final
Reports of Principal Investigators. Outer Continental Shelf
Environmental Assessment Program. Vol. 66. Research Unit
681. Anchorage, AK. pp. 203-279.

Poulin, Kathleen A. and J. Haynes. 1986. Construction
Techniques, Environmental Impacts and Laws/Regulations for
Recreation Development on the Great Lakes: An Annotated
Bibliography and Discussion of Critical Needs in New York.
Sea Grant First Impressions Report. SUNY, Brockport, NY.

pp 71.

Randall, R., and M. Palermo. 1990. Demonstrations of equipment
and techngiues for capping contaminated dredged material.
Dredging Res. Vicksburg. Vol. DRP90-4: 5-8.

Reinfelder, J. and N. Fisher. 1991. The assimilation of
elements ingested by marine copepods. Sci. 251:794-6.

Rubinstein, N., W. Gilliam, and N. Gregory. 1984. dietary
accumulation of PCBs from a contaminated sediment source by
a demersal fish (Leiostomus xanthurus). Aquat. Toxicol.
5:331-342.





Page 94

“jue}suOd Ulead (S]2Ha}eW

aBpaip ‘*a"1) syndul o1uabodosyjue 194}0 }!
seaie uorejnuinoose Jo} jeanyeu si YoIyM ‘sy/7u
ZO IW Zz - ZL punose 0} *}e4 Ajeyeuxoidde
Aq paonpas aq Aew ‘ulseg uasuaselysuyg

ay} ul sa}e1 uoNdwinsuod uabAxo peqeas ‘SL#

“(sjiods

abpaip ul }daoxe) seale jeuonisodap ay} ul
apnyiubew jo Japso ue ynoge Aq aseaioap jim
jUaUUIpPaS ay} U! SUOIE1}UBDUOD jeal Goes | ‘DL#

“SUOIIPUOD PjalypuIM 0} pezejad aq UBD Yorum
abpnis yo Wodsues Aajjea-UMOp olposide

Aq paysijdwosoe aq ||Im ulseg uasueelsuyd
au} Woy abpnis abemas jo Buisueajo eyl “L7#

(sasayyodAH)
SJDNVHO GSLVdIOILNV


Page 9

FIRST ENVIRONMENTAL WORKSHOP

LOCATION: NMFS - NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE:
GLOUCESTER, MA

DATES: MARCH 13-14, 1991

PURPOSE: TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR COOPERATIVE
ASSESSMENT AND QUANTIFICATION OF LIVING MARINE
RESOURCE LOSS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
DUE TO HABITAT LOSS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION

SPONSORED BY: NMFS NORTHEAST ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

MARCH 13 - WEDNESDAY
8:00-9:00 Registration

9:00-9:15 Introduction to the Northeast Regional
Environmental Council and its Activities to Date.

- M. Ingham, Chairman, Environmental Council
9:15-9:45 Keynote Address: Fishery Management Needs for

Information on Changes in Stocks Resulting From

Habitat Loss or Degradation.

- R. Roe, Regional Director, NMFS, NE Region

9:45-10:15 Environmental Quality and Resource Health -
Quantifying Resource Loss

- J. Pearce, Science and Research Director,
NMFS, NE Center

10:15-10:30 Break

10:30-11:00 The 12-Mile Sewage Dumpsite Study: A Case Study of
change following pollution abatement.

- J. O'Reilly, Chief, Chemical Processes Branch,
NE Center

11:00-11:30 EMAP Near Coastal Component: A Program to Measure
Indicators of Ecosystem Health in U.S. Estuaries

- J. Paul, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, EPA

re

| Preceding Page Blank | ; : ot
i} . *



Page 77

Starr, M., J. Himmelman, and J. Therriault. 1990. Inhibition of
serum- and ras-stimulated DNA synthesis by antibodies to
phospholipase C. Sci., 247:1071-4.

Steele, J., and E. Henderson. 1984. Modelling long-term
fluctuations in fish stocks. Sci. 224:985-70.

Stevens, P. 1987. Response of excised gill tissue from the New
Zealand scallop Pecten novaeselandiae to suspended silt.
New Zealand J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 21:605-614.

Stevens, P. 1988. Scallops in a silty situation. Catch. 15:20-
3.

Stevens, P. 1990. Specificity of host recognition of
individuals from different host races of symbiotic pea crabs
(Decapoda: Pinnotheridae). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 143:193-
207.

Thayer, G. and A. Chester. 1989. Distribution and Abundance of
Fishes Among Basin and Channel Habitats in Florida Bay.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1): 200-19.

Thurston, R., R. Russo, C. Fetterolf, T. Edsall and Y. Barber.
1979. A Review of the EPA Red Book: Quality Criteria for
Water. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 313 pp.

Turner, J., and P. Tester. 1989. Zooplankton Feeding Ecology:
Copepod grazing during an expatriate red tide. In E. M.
Cosper, et al., Coastal and Estuarine Studies, 35. Novel
Phytoplankton Blooms. Causes and Impacts of recurrent Brown
Tides and Other Unusual Blooms. Springer-Verlag. Berlin.
pp. 360-374.

Waldichuk, M. 1986. Management of the estuarine ecosystem
against cumulative effects of pollution and development.
In. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cumulative Environmental
Effects: A Binational Perspective. Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council and the U.S. National Research
Council Board on Basic Biology. Ottawa. pp. 93-107.

Wilson, D. 1953. The influence of the nature of the substratum
on the metamorphosis of the larvae of marine animals. Ann.
Inst. Oceanogr. Monaco. 27:49-156.


Page 83

YALYWND X YWSA

886L L86L 986L
slp OIE,
1 L _L 1 SU tL L L i 00°O
| | gzo
L oso
l gz'0
L 00'L
L gz'1
L86l YIGINADAG LE r OGL
G3SV3I9 ONIdAING
L gz
ONIdWNG 39aMs [—] | 00-2

SNOL LSM 4O SNOITIIN


and concerns for the long-term recovery for the resources.

G. Thayer acknowledged the needs for effectively
quantifying resource loss and recovery, and described the
new Restoration Center being established by NOAA's Dam-
age Assessment and Restoration Program. The Restoration
Center’s goals are to: (1) become a focal point for habitat
restoration expertise, (2) assume the lead for planning,
implementing, and monitoring restoration activities; and (3)
provide habitat restoration expertise to the Damage Assess-
ment Center component of the Damage Assessment and
Restoration Program. The Restoration Center’ will play a
key role in NOAA’s future Superfund, oil spill, and habitat
assessment and restoration activities. A national program is
being proposed, including a regional component in the
Northeast. This program should greatly enhance NMFS's
effectiveness in participating in interagency efforts to quan-
tify resource loss and recovery.

The Coastal America initiative, an interagency ap-
proach toconserve habitats, was presented by S. Chanesman.
Still being developed, the initiative proposes to expand
habitat restoration activities within existing mandates and
will lead to closer cooperation among NMFS, EPA, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in meeting mandates for conserving coastal habitats.
The initiative’s three priorities of sediment contamination,
non-point-source pollution, and overall habitat degradation
mirror the principle needs of all resource agencies.

Insummary, the panel stressed that quantified informa-
tion would remain essential for effective fish habitat conser-
vationand management. This could be accomplished through
acooperative strategy to develop quantified data on resource
loss (Appendix L).

CONCLUDING DISCUSSIONS

T. Bigford led the concluding discussion of the work-
shop, focusing on the draft strategy and possible future
efforts to quantify resource loss and make good use of the
quantitative information. Recognizing the effectiveness of
the stock assessment workshop process, A. Rosenberg
proposed that a similar approach, targeted at the population
level, could be used for habitat assessments. Rosenberg
further suggested that a single-species approach, combining
existing organism-level research with population assess-
ments, would provide a model for judging the effects of
anthropogenic activities on a specific population. Because
the largest data base available now is for winter flounder, he
suggested that winter flounder be used as the test species.
However, he also recognized that most of the methodology
for this approach must be developed.

As an option to the resource population approach, the
use of a human activities approach was also discussed,
recognizing that most habitat decisions are made from the
human activities context and that relevant data bases exist in
allagencies. Again, the need for quantitative information on
the habitats and species being affected was stressed, regard-

Page 5

less of the approach taken.

Another approach proposed was the use of “habitat
suitability indices” commonly used in freshwater ecology.
Because this procedure is well established in closed sys-
tems, it was felt that bringing this technique into marine
habitat assessment might be useful. :

During the discussion, it was acknowledged that future
workshops should be held for the exchange and analysis of
data sets within specific methods in order to develop more
effective habitat/resource assessment procedures. In this
regard, it was agreed that winter flounder provided the best
test species for a future habitat assessment workshop, and
that necessary methods must be developed. In addition to
winter flounder, striped bass was offered as a second poten-
tial candidate for modeling. But critical to either study is
linking organism-specific effects to populations through a
quantitative process.

At the conclusion of this discussion, the workshop was
adjourned.

NEEDS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS

Aninterpretive distillation of the workshop discussions
produced the following list of needs and proposed actions.

NEEDS

1. Estimate resource losses resulting from harvest closures
due to contamination -- this is tractable.

2. Review the results of biological and toxicological re-
search at organism or microcosm level to develop esti-
mates of population effects of habitat loss or degradation.

3. Develop protocols and methods to respond to an environ-
mentally induced fishery mortality episode; efforts should
be undertaken to define the affected area and quantify the
resource loss.

4.Establish a cooperative information and guidance net-
work regarding habitat restoration activities and their
effectiveness.

5.Create an electronic archive and interactive network to
exchange habitat/resource data and information.

6. Establish an interagency collaborative process to assess
and summarize resource effects of habitat loss and degra-
dation in the Northeast.

PROPOSED ACTIONS

1. NMFS Northeast Region personnel should work with the
National Ocean Service's Strategic Assessments Branch
and with state agencies to include resource harvest loss
estimates with summary reports of shellfish closures, and
provide these estimates to all pertinent fishery manage-
ment commissions, councils, and regulatory agencies.


Page 111

SEPA

EMAP’S MISSION

Define Existing Conditions (Baseline or
Status)

Determine if Environmental Quality is
Getting Better or Worse (Trends)

Provide a Base for Comparative Risk
Assessment (Associations)

Develop Better Performance Measures
(Indicators)

Develop Technologies for Assessing
Status and Trends (Methods)

EMAP


Page 81

BHBuldwng ebpnis eHemas jo
JUuBWa}eqy 0}
1Y4b6ig 440A MON JaUU] BY} JO

P}10Ig pue }eVIGeH ay} Jo asuodsay

AGNLS AYAAODSY ALIS dINNG JATIA-CL

nk

receding page blan

‘Precedi


EDEEEEEEenemen en

Page 107

‘

An Approach to Ecological
Monitoring and Research



uado 0} speq

YSI[@YS HUA |IM YIIYM S[ard} ajqe}de00e

0} eseai9ap [JIM Sswejd JNs ul UOTeUIWe}UOD
abemas }UeDe1 jo BAN eOIpUl Bl4a}9eq JO S|9AD] “SH

“gayeiqayoAul
o1yjueqebaw pue ysijul Ul eseai9ep
Anueoipubis [ji soleuoue [2392S Ppue
siowin} ‘wsiisesed jo souaplou! ‘uoHe199/N
‘uoisosa uy ‘aseesip [16 49e1g “OLF

{sasayyOdAy)
SADNVHO GALVdIOILNV


Page 60

stages and instars. Interestingly, these authors give findings
that conform with work done by other authors, suggesting a high
degree of uniformity between populations of turtle grass,
Thalassia testudinum, a key vegetation component. ‘They note that
seasonal fluctuations have been determined; these undoubtedly are
related to evolutionary development of reproduction and
recruitment during specific times of the year. In seven sea
grass communities sampled along the west coast of Florida,
biomass was highest in the spring and summer. Although the
lowest periods for standing stocks of macroalgae were in the mid-
winter months, kilocaloric values remained high at most sites
throughout the year, inspite of winter dieback. Thus macroalgae,
along with sea grasses, can provide available kilocalories, and
energy, throughout the year. . The narrative on the last five or
six pages of this paper suggests to this author that the
classification process can become evermore complex, going from
generalizations about land use to conditions of habitat and their
relation to fishes.

COUPLING, CUES, and LOOPS

Given the foregoing, that the nature and quality of marine
habitats vary considerably throughout the coastal areas of
northeastern United States, and that there are specific habitat
needs that must be met if optimal reproduction, recruitment, and
growth are to occur, it is then important to know what the
connections might be between the more important habitat variables
and the biology, or life history, of key species. Weekly, I have
received several score of journals or reprints which deal with
marine sciences generally, and fisheries science in particular.
The journal articles and separates regularly touch on seemingly
arcane, eclectic subjects and issues, which, at first glance,
have little to do with the biology of fishes or the status of
their habitats. Thus they may be rapidly put aside in lieu of
more interesting reading; the fact is, however, that many of
these articles have an overwhelming appropriateness for the
subjects at hand. For instance, a recent study (Starr, et al.,
1990) has shown that there is a coupling of spawning of marine
invertebrates and the onset of phytoplankton blooms. Spawning in
the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, and the
common blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, seems to be fostered by
metabolites released by several species of phytoplankton. As
phytoplankton "peak" they apparently produce metabolic byproducts
which form a cue inducing spawning by the urchin and mussel. The
seminal thought here is that the integration of several abiotic
and biotic factors (inherent in any definition of habitat
quality) leads to plankton blooms, spawning, and subsequent
favorable conditions for larval growth and survival. Numerous
authors have reviewed the evolutionary significance of this and
report that similar direct coupling of reproduction and larval
growth phases with phytoplankton blooms is common among a range



Page 56

Marine scientists studying environmental issues have tended to
carry out research which did not address the real issues at hand;
often little regard was paid to the cumulative effects of man's
activities (Dayton, 1986; Dickert and Tuttle, 1985; Waldichuk,
1986). Physical degradation and its effects have become
intertwined with the chemical effects of toxins and nutrients,
often leading to conditions such as those found in Boston Harbor
and the New York Bight. More important, even the best of our
reports ("grey literature") and peer reviewed publications "get
lost" in the voluminous compilations of the environmental
literature; a review of any issue of the UK Marine Pollution
Research Titles indicates the depth of the problem. Finally,
marine environmental scientists have persisted in addressing each
other, and rarely has this community conveyed its findings to the
real managers - the municipal and county governments, urban
planners and zoning officials, and politicians, and their
constituencies - the body public. Thus the coastal zone and
principal fisheries habitats have slowly slid under a sea of
asphalt - lost forever to the fishes which depend upon them. To
reverse these trends, aquatic scientists must begin to address
the issues so that 1) the cumulative effects of man's activities
are understood, 2) the voluminous data and publications are
integrated and synthesized to some greater whole, and 3) the
results of such analyses are conveyed to those persons and
institutions responsible for development and other uses of the
coastal zone. We must begin to take the awesome responsibility
to establish standards and criteria necessary to the management
of the coastal zone for the betterment of fisheries habitats.
This can best be done in the same vein as by the public health
and preventative medicine communities. More research and
quantification are not the sole answers to improved fisheries
habitat. I hope the following thoughts will help us to move in
the right directions.

CURRENT ISSUES

In the past much of the concern of the Northeast Region of
the National Marine Fisheries Service has been for the commercial
fisheries which tended to occur further offshore and in areas
such as Georges Bank, far removed from sources of pollution.
While the Agency had some concern for recreational fish, by and
large these activities were not of great concern and tended to be
activities which occurred within the coastal zone and principal
embayments of the Northeast; such habitats are often under the
aegis of states. In recent years, however, recreational fishing
has increased significantly in urban areas as well as along the
less developed areas of the Northeast coastline. Heatwole and |
West (1985) discussed the sociological and economic aspects of
recreational fishing, providing as a case study information on




Page 47

The regional Policy also strongly emphasizes Strategies 1, 2, 4,
and 6 of the national policy; thus, it is a logical step forward
in the evolution of the Regional Action Plan (RAP) described in
1985.6 Strategy 1 directs NOAA Fisheries Regions to establish
formal planning and coordinating mechanisms to implement the
national policy on a continuing basis. Strategy 2 directs NOAA
Fisheries research centers to conduct environmental and
ecological research, including long-term studies, that provides
scientific information necessary to implement the policy. In
general, Strategy 4 advises NOAA Fisheries elements to continue
to use procedures and options available under advisory
authorities to influence decisions about important habitats.
Strategy 6 encourages development of more effective interagency
operating arrangements to help define and assign appropriate
roles and responsibilities,

In general, the Policy emphasizes using more holistic approaches
to evaluate federal permits, licenses, and projects. NER will
use provisions of the Magnuson Act and the fishery management
process to address the long-term, cumulative adverse effects of
habitat degradation caused by man's activities. Future program
emphasis will be placed on developing the best possible
scientific information to support NER's management
recommendations to other agencies. This emphasis takes advantage
of opportunities to influence federal regulatory and construction
agencies on a broader scale and at a higher level through the
fishery management process.

Policy Implications

Successful implementation of the Policy will require significant
changes in NER's current working arrangements with outside
agencies and organizations. NER cannot abandon its mandated
responsibilities under the FWCA and other laws. However, in the
face of budgetary restrictions and other constraints, NER must
redirect its habitat conservation program to increase long-range
benefits in a manner that is consistent with the mission of NOAA
Fisheries, rather than dictated by the bureaucratic needs of
other agencies. NER will emphasize early involvement in other
agencies' plans and activities to avoid or reduce later problems.
NER will also continue to search for more efficient and effective
ways to fulfill NOAA Fisheries' legal mandates.

Policy implementation will require better definition of major
environmental issues and the most significant threats to
resources

‘Northeast Regional Office & Northeast Fisheries Center, NOAA
Fisheries, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985. Regional Action
Plan. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-37. 20 p. +
appendices.


Page 51

MAGNUSON FCMA REAUTHORIZARTION AMENDMENTS
PERTAINING TO HABITAT CONSERVATION.

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law
94-265) as amended through November 28, 1990 re-affirmed that
conservation and management applied to both the fishery resources
and the marine environment, and provided the Councils with
specific duties to identify and conserve fishery habitat. The
pertinent sections are quoted as follows:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS

(2) The term "conservation and management" refers to all of
the rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures
(A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and
which are useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any
fishery resource and the marine environment; and (B) which are
designed to assure that--

(i) a supply of food and other products may be taken, and

that recreational benefits may be obtained, on a continuing

basis;

(ii) irreversible or long term adverse effects on fishery

resources and the marine environment are avoided; and

(iii) there will be a multiplicity of options available with

respect to future uses of these resources.

SEC. 302. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS
(i) FISHERY HABITAT CONCERNS

(1) Each Council--
(A) may comment on and make recommendations concerning any
activity undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken, by any
State or Federal agency that, in the view of the Council,
may affect the habitat of a fishery resource under its
jurisdiction and (B) shall comment on and make
recommendations concerning any such activity that, in the
view of the Council, is likely to substantially affect the
habitat of an anadromous fishery resource under its
jurisdiction.

(2) Within 45 days after receiving a comment or recommendation
under paragraph (1) from a Council, a Federal agency shall
provide a detailed response, in writing, to the Council regarding
the matter. In the case of a comment or recommendation under
paragraph (1)(B), the response shall include a description of
measures being considered by the agency for mitigating or
offsetting the impact of the activity on such habitat.

i Preceding page blank | tank |




Page 135

Appendix L
Draft Cooperative Strategy for Quantifying Resource Losses Due to
Habitat Loss or Degradation


Page 13

Appendix B
List of Participants for First NMFS Northeast Environmental Workshop

f }

| Preceding Page Blank


Page 137

March 12, 1991

NER_Environmental Workshop

COOPERATIVE STRATEGY TO QUANTIFY LOSSES

For decades, scientists, resource managers, and regulators
have been stymied by the lack of technical information linking
habitat change and resource populations. These information gaps
are most glaring in assessing the potential impacts of habitat
degradation on protected or managed species. Although intuition
suggests a connection, the nexus has not been proven to decision
makers. A principal goal of this first Environmental Workshop is
to develop a cooperative strategy to meet those needs. This paper
offers a strategy and suggests specific products.

History confirms that no state or federal agency can solve
this complex problem unilaterally. Similarly, one meeting and one
product will not be sufficient, although research and products
could be designed to apply to recurring issues. To affirm our
commitment, we should agree to:

o clarify the advisory, management, scientific, and
regulatory roles of each participating agency

© continue interagency coordination via meetings and
regular communications

© recognize the limitations and data imperfections that
will complicate our efforts

o determine appropriate roles for each agency

© agree on products such as data syntheses, loss
assessments that will meet each agency's needs

© convince our agencies that this issue demands long-term

support

To begin implementation, we should designate a subgroup of
workshop attendees (or their representatives) to:

o develop a list of needs (data, syntheses documents,
comparisons of habitat and stock trends, etc.)

© agree on a scientific protocol to quantify habitat
losses and to relate those losses to populations of
protected and managed species

© consider the need for an overall coordinator, perhaps
on a rotating basis

© establish a communications system (electronic mail,
regular mailings, etc.)

Your participation in this exercise is vital. Your scientific
skills, management insights, regulatory powers, and conservation
ethic will all prove valuable as we implement this cooperative

strategy.

, Preceding page blank


Page 55

Environmental Quality and Resource Health -
Quantifying Resource Loss
Dr. John B. Pearce
Deputy Center Director, Northeast Center
Woods Hole, MA, USA 02543

for
Northeast Regional Environmental Meeting
Gloucester, Massachusetts

INTRODUCTION

There is no doubt that the future of fisheries, as well as
fisheries research and management, will change drastically in
coming decades as the 21st Century commences. Declining stocks
of fishes necessary to sustain a healthy industry will have to be
dealt with. Numerous developments in the field of recreational
fisheries will also mean that there will be a greater competition
for any remaining wildstocks. Changes in dietary habits of the
American citizenry will also affect our uses of the wild fish
stocks; increased seafood consumption for purposes of gourmet
meals, or for reasons of health, will undoubtedly lead to an ever
increasing consumption of seafood among the general citizenry, as
well as by selected portions of the population. Changes in
attitudes of the US Government and the national business
community will also mandate that the United States attempt to
become an exporter of seafoods rather than a net importer.

At the same time as these changes are occurring, there will
be change in the ways that fossil fuels are used in this country;
while shortages of fossil fuel energy have not affected the
operation of fisheries vessels to date, there is little doubt
that sometime in the near future greater attention will be paid
to fixed gear and other low energy ways of fishing. Most
important to our meeting today, to meet the nation's needs for
seafood a far greater effort will be made to protect coastal and
shelf habitats. Mariculture operations cannot be conducted in
waters that are even marginally contaminated, and mariculture
activities tend to produce their own unique forms of contami-
nants. Given the changing nature of the fisheries in the United
States, far more attention will have to be given to habitat
quality and how to manage the coastal zone in the future,
including principal harbors, estuaries, coastal waters, and
riverine systems which drain terrestrial habitats far removed
from the sea.

Fisheries habitat research to date has been naive, as have
our attempts to "manage" the habitat necessary to the
reproduction, recruitment, and growth of fin and shellfishes.

Preceding page blank |


Page 2

on the near-coastal marine component. EMAP is the mani-
festation of the new, broader ecological perspective in EPA,
which expands the agency’s historic human-health initia-
tives into toxicology. The first field sampling in the near-
coastal component visited over 100 sites (mostly estuarine)
in summer 1990 in the Northeast between Cape Cod and
Cape Henry (i.e., Virginian Province). Program plans call
for resampling the Virginian Province and for initial sam-
pling in the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., Louisianian Province) in
summer 1991. In each case, the initial focus of the near-
coastal component is on estuaries, and will shift later to
include nearshore ocean ecosystems. EMAP is designed to
define existing ecological conditions, determine trends in
conditions, provide a base for comparative risk assessments,
develop better indicators of ecological health, and develop
technologies for status and trends assessment. EMAP is an
interagency, cooperative program with NOAA which is
participating through the National Ocean Service's Status
and Trends Program (Appendix J).

P. Hughes of the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management described an interstate (i.e., Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, and Maine) and international [i.e., United
States and Canada (i.e., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia)]
research, monitoring; management, and education effort in
the Gulf of Maine region. The cooperative initiative recog-

nizes the value of the Gulf of Maine’s living resources and
the human activities conducted in or near it, but also ad-
dresses human threats to the Gulf of Maine’s ecosystem.
Ecosystem stresses are evidenced around the gulf, but more
data must be collected to evaluate trends in environmental
quality. The cooperative effort hopes to lead to management
of the environmental quality in the Gulf of Maine by
understanding the principal stresses and effects tending to
reduce the quality and value of the gulf’s ecosystem (Appen-
dix K).

T. Bigford, Chief of the Northeast Regional Operations
Office’s Habitat and Protected Resources Division, de-
scribed the information needs of Northeast Region habitat
and resource management programs. These needs arise
from both site-specific and broad-extent problems. Habitat
managers are shifting their focus from primarily individual
site-specific problems to a more effective mix, including
broad-based, recurring issues. Several reports and summa-
ties have been prepared on the more general issues. Yet,
greater scientific and managerial expertise is needed to
synthesize the information and apply NMFS knowledge in
resource management areas torecurring, more-generic habitat
issues. Bigford introduced and discussed a draft cooperative
strategy for dealing with the problem of quantifying re-
source loss resulting from habitat degradation (Appendix
L).

PANEL SUMMARIES

PANEL NO. 1: ACTIVITIES AND
INTERESTS OF COUNCILS AND
COMMISSIONS IN EXPANDING HABITAT
PROTECTION

B. Higgins and A. Rosenburg of the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, G. Johnson of the New England Fishery
Management Council, and T. Hoff of the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council discussed the requirements
for, and interest in, addressing fishery habitat protection
through the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Man-
agement Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. In introducing the panel discussion, the
Magnuson Act was reviewed, noting the original require-
ment for the “best available” scientific information for
habitat needs of the managed species, and highlighting the
new requirement that regional fishery management councils
“shall” comment on, and make recommendations for, any
activity that “substantially” affects “anadromous” fish habi-
tats. This latter requirement, combined with the existing
broad definition of “anadromous” extending to cover fresh-
water and estuarine fish which migrate to ocean waters,
significantly increases the responsibility of the councils to
address habitat issues.

With the new Magnuson Act mandates on anadromous
species habitats and a re-affirmation of concern for fish
habitats for managed species, the New England and Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils are working with
NMFS to strengthen habitat sections of FMPs. G. Johnson
noted that the New England Fishery Management Council
is giving serious thought to the new habitat mandate, and
continues to work with the NMFS Northeast Regional
Operations Office’s Habitat and Protected Resources Divi-
sion and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s North-
eastern Region in addressing environmental issues. T. Hoff
noted that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council is
addressing habitat issues through an active Habitat Commit-
tee, meeting eight times per year, and has recently argued
effectively against several coastal developments. Hoff also
noted that habitat needs are a significant part of the FMPs,
with the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan dis-
cussing the habitat needs for spawning, larval, and juvenile
stages to enable recruitment to the fishery. Secondly, the
habitat section of the plan provides positions on environ-
mental projects that affect the habitats for these life stages.

Hoff expressed a concem that addressing development
issues, in addition to fishery management issues, would
overextend the limited resources of the regional fishery
management councils, and that the “burden of proof” on


Page 72

those points having to do with the recruitment process! In many
cases such inquiries and decisions can be made based on the
literature that already exists. As I have emphasized, there are
tens of thousands of papers having to do with aquatic habitat
quality, the effects of contaminants and physical degradation on
fish, and proposals for mitigation of or avoidance of effects
from environmental contamination. It is worth reviewing the
paper by Boreman et al. (1990) as well as others such as the one

by Steele and Henderson (1984). The latter paper, concerned with
modeling temporal fluctuations in fish stocks, is an important
reference.

In conclusion I believe that we must:

o Start down a trail which involves close
cooperation with other investigators, and
which is based on a thorough review and
assessment of the existing literature;

o recognize that there will have to be
scores of disciplines involved in the
development of environmental assessments,
especially as they relate to fish stocks
that must be managed under a FMP;

o use generic data and information to
develop preliminary environmental assessments;

o begin to formulate habitat classifications,
standards, and criteria and apply them
in decision making, which commences with
the development of case studies; and

o ensure that any procedures implemented must be
straightforward and developed ina
manner so that managers can understand
the process being followed.

In regard to the last bullet, I would like to suggest that
we follow the acronym "SPIN". In this instance, the "S" stands
for simplicity. The "P" stands for palpable; any activities that
we carry out in the future must be able to be understood -
palped, if you will - by people working at a range of levels from
the general citizenry, through the environmental managers, and up
to the research scientist carrying out the necessary
measurements. The "I" stands for individuals. We cannot
possibly deal with all species that might occupy a particular
zoogeographic province (LME) or ecological niche. We must
identify those key species which lend themselves to measurement
in terms of how environmental well-being affects their biological
processes which culminate in harvestable stocks. Finally, the
"N" stands for numerous. Scientists developing the quantifiable


Page 27

Appendix D
Overheads for Introduction to NMFS Northeast Environmental Council


Page 70

of fish (Konasewich, et al., 1982 and Chapman, et al., 1982).
The presence of metallothioneins for instance might be an
indicator of stress due to toxic metals (Engel, 1lyss).

I personally remain convinced that we should look at
measurable changes in the quality of marine habitats and, based
on laboratory and field experiments, relate such changes to
classifications, standards, and criteria that are developed in
the same way as used in public health programs. For instance, as
we see increases in bacteria and other microorganisms, i.e.,
geofungi, in the environment we can easily apply standards that
would relate to fish, as well as to public health. Like
where habitats are significantly affected by organic
or by toxic trace metals, standards can be developed for
contaminant levels in ambient environments, as well as tor evels
in the tissues of fishes. There are sufficient written materials
on these subjects to allow us to begin this process now. In
fact, some years ago the U.S. EPA commissioned a review of the
"EPA Redbook: Quality Criteria for Water." This effort was
undertaken by the Water Quality Section, American Fisheries
Society (Thurston, 1979). This effort should be revisited and
the Redbook updated to a point where it will be accepted by the
larger fishery research community, as well as by the general
environmental community concerned with long-term changes in
habitat quality. Such criteria then must be used by urban
planners, developers, industrialists, and government agencies
resonsible for coastal and shelf development. Likewise, gen. .~
findings from research and monitoring in one zoogeographic
province can and must be applied to other regions.

Moreover, marine scientists interested in managing habitats
should garner a greater knowledge about certain behavioral
characteristics of the more important fishes. No nation in the
world has a public health service which would knowingly wait
until large numbers of individuals are demonstrably ill before
making adjustments in the environment known to cause a particular
illness. We should not wait until fish and shellfish become sick
before taking action! Behavioral cues,often can be used to show
when fish are stressed. We should use certain behavioral
standards, along with measurable ecological changes, to
illustrate (warn) that fish are indeed under stress and subject
to the effects of minimal or sublethal levels of pollution; we
must not, in the future, wait until we have Raritan Bays and
Boston Harbors before us to indicate that something is wrong.

Finally, personnel working within the general area of
habitat quality, especially those doing research, should begin to
tailor their research activities so that the resulting data can
be used in "models" that are important to the management of
marine fisheries. To date field and laboratory experiments have
rarely been of a nature that would allow the data to be "plugged
into" the general fishery assessment schemes and models. A


Page 63

ciliary modes of feeding. Again, the "loops" back to lethal and
sublethal foraging are obvious; if key forage species are lost
due to anthropogenic activities, the general system loses
stability, with significantly greater losses in those species
conducting lethal foraging.

MORE COUPLINGS, CUES, and LOOPS

In recent decades it has been fashionable to challenge
marine organisms with a range of contaminants including trace
metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons, and
other toxic contaminants. In many cases the individual fish or
invertebrate is observed and the time taken for the organism to
die, or show a significant change due to increasing
concentrations of a contaminant, are measured and a LD50
assessed. Rarely was any attempt made to relate the findings to
the status of stocks or reduced productivity. More recent
studies have considered the accumulation of certain contaminants
as they might move through a natural or artificial foodweb.
Rubinstein, et al. (1984) conducted a study of the uptake of PCBs
from a contaminated sediment via a polychaete worm which is a
principal forage species for a fish, the spot. The results of
these studies indicated that contaminated harbor sediments can
serve as a source of PCBs which will accumulate throughout
varying elements of the foodchain, including sandworms and spot.
This is an important observation since PCBs are relatively
insoluble in water but are associated with organic moieties in
enriched sediments. Thus as worms ingest sediments, supposedly
toxic PCBs can be concentrated in their tissues, to be passed up
to those species of fish which forage on the worm either lethally
or non-lethally.

The uptake of organics and inorganics (toxic trace metals)
is reasonably well known and there are literally hundreds of
papers that give data on the body burdens of contaminants. One
such paper (Boehm and Hirtzer, 1982) provides information on
levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in several species of finfish
which habituate the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. Interest-
ingly it is not until trawling (sampling) stations were located
over the Scotian Shelf that samples of fish, free of petroleum
and PCB, were recovered. Similar measurements and reports of
tissue levels of contaminants have been made for a wide-range of
habitats. For instance, fish from Puget Sound have been found to
be contaminated with various organic contaminants (Konasewich, et
al, 1982). Beyond this, fish from habitats heavily contaminated
with organic substances have been reported to have elevated
tissue levels of contaminants and a significant incidence of
disease syndromes (Malins, et al, 1982). Similar information and
data for the Northeast are, unfortunately, fairly scarce. While
there have been a number of studies which show exceptional levels
of PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other contaminants, there




Page 37

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 228 / Friday, November 25, 1983 / Notices 53143
— —— — — — — = —
Implementation management measure contained in the make clear the Councils will be obliged

Comment: The coordination
mechanism for policy's implementation
is not described. It is alsa not clear how
interested public and conservation
groups will be able to interact and have
input into this important decision.

Response: The coordination
mechansim will be developed by each
region, following natonal guidelines,
during the implementation phase. It is
expected that NMFS Regional and
Center Directors wul discuss their
programs with their constituents in
order to make determinations with
respect to priorities.

Comment: in Implementation Strategy
No. 4, second sentence. urge addition of
“artificial impoundments” to list of
activities which have potential for
habitat degradation.

Response: NMFS agrees to this
addition.

Comment: Under Implementaticn
Strategy No. 7, suggest policy cover
catadromous as weil as anadromous
species.

Response: Suggestion refers to NMFS’
involvement in fresh water. While
catadromous species are not excluded.
NMFS intends to focus on anadromous
species.

Comment: [mplementation Strategy
No. 3(a) implies that fishermen may be a
threat to fishery habitats. Statement
should be clarified to address possible
conditions under which fishing poses a
threat to habitat.

Response: Under certain conditions.
fishermen can cause damage to habitats.
e.g. bottom gear fishing. vessel
discharges. etc. The Regional Fishery
Management Councils may deal with
such under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson Act), but may not control
actions by others. There was no
intention to single out fishermen as a
threat to habitat as they realize the
importance of healthy habitats and are
beneficiaries of such.

Comment: Implementation Strategy
No. 3(a) states that Fishery Management
plans should include “proposal of
measures to preserve, protect and
restore habitat.” Should be clarified to
indicate range of "measures" which
could be implemented. Should also
indicate that no measures may be
required in many fisheries where habitat
issues are not significant.

Response: The range of measures is
intentionally left up to each Regional
Fishery Management Council, depending
on needs of the fishery. The Councils
will have the same prerogatives
regarding habitat conservation that they
have with respect to any other

Fishery Management Plans. The
language of 3(a) has been modified to
indicate, that measures will be proposed
only where appropriate.

Role of Regional Fishery Management
Councils

Comment: Implementation Strategy
No. 3(a) imposes strict requirements on
the Regional Fishery Management
Councils above and beyond the
requirements of the Magnuson Act. Talk
of a partnership between NMFS and the
Counc contradicted by a clear
threat to disapprove Fishery
Management Plans that do not meet
requirements proposed by NMFS.
Moreover, this strategy is an attempt to
reduce the-responsibilities of the
Councils assigned by Congress.

Response: Implementation Strategy
No. 3(a) strengthens, not weakens or
reduces, the role of the Councils
regarding habitat conservation. This
strategy does not impose requirements
beyond the Magnuson Act, since habitat
is an important element in fishery
management.

Comment: {t would be appropriate to
refine the planning and implementation
strategies to assure the Councils a
partnership level role in any actions
taken under the policy once it is
implemented. If workshops to further
develop the policy format are being
considered. the Councils would
appreciate an opportunity to participate.

Response: The Councils are intended
to have an important partnership role
and NMFS expects to contact them from
time to time during policy
implementation planning and
development.

Comment: Minimum Fishery
Management Plan descriptions called
for could impose an impractical burden.
on plan development. For example, 80%
of salmon catch in Alaska includes fish
from habitat areas outside Alaska. The
Councils are conscious of importance of
habitat and need to protect it, but the
Councils are not in a position to
carefully review the work of everyone
on the coasts and oceans and assess or
restate the assessments of other
agencies which do monitor the impact
those actions may have on the
environment.

Response: NMFS believes an.
erroneous impression was created by
wording in Implementation Strategy No.
3(a) which stated “The Regional Fishery
Management Councils should address
habitat considerations in their Fishery
Management Plans, where applicable,
based on the best available information
from all sources which can be
coordinated by NMFS/NOAA." The
underlined words have been deleted to

to review only information made
available to them by NMFS/NOAA and
others during their plan deliberations.
This will be an evolutionary process and
will not impose an impractical burden
on the Councils in plan development.
NMFS will work closely with the
Councils to make them aware of habitat
conservation matters they might need to
consider.

Comment: Several commenters stated
that Implementation Strategy No. 3
outlines the development of a
potentially powerful framework for
building a constructive partnership
between the Councils and NMFS for
habitat conservation. Although the
Councils presently may become as
involved in maintenance of habitat as
their authorities allow. they have played
a minor role in habitat conservation to
date. If this strategy is to be
implemented successfully, NMFS will
have to be highly responsive to Council
needs with technical assistance and
information delivered both timely and
adequately. Parhaps Implementation
Strategies Nos. 1 and 2 should make an
even stronger reference to development
of research priorities and programs in
response to Council needs.

Response: NMFS expects that
Implementation Strategy No. 3{b} will
result in NMFS providing the Councils
with needed information and support.
Again, this will be an evolutionary
process so ag not to place an undue
burden on the Councils. The products
resulting from impiementation of
Strategies Nos. 1 and 2 will provide the
basis for the information provided to the
Councils.

Comment: Suggest following change in
Implementation Strategy No. 3(a).
second paragraph: “Where appropriate.
existing FMPs should be amended to
meet these standards.”

Response: NMFS agrees to
recommended change.

Comment: Caution against over
reliance on Councils as their desires
may not always lead to non-overfishing
or non-resource exploitation policies
that NMFS supports in conjunction with
wetlands protection and fisheries
management.

Response» NMFS has every
confidence that the Councils, in
partnership with NMFS, will not
undertake actions that will lead to
overfishing or over exploitation of the
resource.

NMFS’ Role Vis-a-Vis Regional Fishery
Management Councils and States

Comment: Several commenters
believe that a number of statements
within the policy.convey the impression
that NMFS intends to inject itself into an



Page 57

fishing activities within the bounds of New York City. At the
time they wrote their paper, they indicated an interest in
pollution effects and how these might affect the outlook towards
recreational fishing. Poulin and Haynes (1986) reviewed the
various development activities and forms of environmental impacts
that affected recreational activities on the Great Lakes,
including fishing. Most of their concerns are applicable to
marine waters. They raised certain critical questions such as,
should coastal areas be further developed, and, if so, how should
development occur so as to maximize recreational benefits while
minimizing environmental degradation and other negative aspects?
They attempted to address issues such as are coastal environments
(wetlands) so ecologically.-important as to recommend no
recreational activities for such areas? Following on such
reports and information, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), in its Coastal Zone Management Information
Exchange documents, has pointed out significant issues in
relation to the future management of the coastal zone and marine
resources. Issues such as non-point sources were seen as
extremely important in the development and utilization of
renewable and nonrenewable resources within the coastal zone
(NOAA, 1991).

One of the first steps required in managing the coastal
zone, to the degree that living marine resources and their
habitats are not compromised, is the development of a land use
and land classification document which provides standards for
land use and developmental activities within the coastal. zone.
Classification typically involves several phases (Baker, 1985),
the first of which is usually a. rather gross level of description
for coastal areas. As an example, Baker (1985) included rankings
such as Level I, 1. Urban or Built Up Land; Level I, 2.
Agriculture Land; etc. These level I categories can then be
divided into more precise or refined classifications. For
instance under Level I, 1., Urban or Built Up Land, the
classifier broke this category into 1.1, residential; 1.2,
commercial and services; 1.3, industrial; 1.4,transporta-
tion/communications; etc. These second level classifications can
then be further broken out, i.e., 1.2, commercial and services,
into 1.2.1, motels and hotels; 1.2.3, marinas/docks/boat storage
facilities; 1.2.7, parking lots; and 1.2.9, commercial/service
areas partially developed; etc. The standard procedures for
proceeding with such classification are given in Baker (1985).
Such classification can be related to aerial photographs or
LANDSAT satellite imagery. Where states have accomplished such
surveys and classifications, it is now possible to detect the
changes which occur in an area as it is being developed.

The second key phase for any classification endeavor is to
develop information on the status of the habitats themselves,
i.e., the estuaries, wetlands, and sublittoral environments of
interest to managers. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),


Page 23

oysters from other estuaries decreased significantly because of
general fears of pollution. Presently there is a fishery for
hard clams in the bay, but all the clams harvested must be taken
elsewhere for depuration before they can be safely consumed.
(source:personal communication from Clyde MacKenzie, Sandy Hook
Lab.)

Closures of shellfish beds because of sewage pollution off
the open Atlantic coastline are less common. One such closure is
the 113 square nautical mile (95,643 acre) area around the center
of the 12-Mile Dumpsite in inner New York Bight. This area was
closed to shellfishing by FDA in 1970, because of unacceptably
high concentrations of coliform bacteria in the waters of the
dumpsite. The shellfish stocks presently found in this area
(surf clam and ocean quahog) are not present in commercially
profitable densities (estimated to be 3.4 clams per tow and 7.6
quahogs per tow), so there is no significant harvest being
blocked by the closure now, but as the site recovers from 64
years of. sludge dumping (1924 - 1987) commercial concentrations
may develop.

Along the New Jersey coast, however, a significant shellfish
resource is being lost because of area closures due to sewage
pollution. Twenty eight percent (amounting to 78,239 acres) of
the 3 mile-wide coastal strip was closed in 1989. The surf clam
resource withheld from harvest by that closure is estimated to be
about 2,233,560 bushels. (Source: N. J. Dep't Env'l Protection,
Division of Water Resources)

A recent example of a shellfishery closure in shelf waters
because of contamination is the surf clam closure on Georges Bank
because of contamination with PSP (paralytic shellfish poison)
toxins. The monitoring in this case was done by the state of
Massachusetts and NMFS. The closure withholds about 250,000
bushels ($3.5 M) of shellfish from harvest, at least temporarily.
It is unknown at this time if the contamination is linked with
pollution in coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine, where PSP
contamination of shellfish in Maine state waters has been chronic
since 1972. In 1980 it was responsible for an $8M loss to the
shellfish industry in that area.

An example of finfish resource losses from non point-source
pollution is the reduced recruitment of winter flounder resulting
from pollution or destruction of nursery habitats in the upper
portions of estuaries in the Northeast. According to Azarovitz
(p.122, Fish Distribution, MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph
15), winter flounder eggs and larvae are particularly susceptible
to toxic wastes in sediments. Also the juveniles and young
adults are dependent on forage in the intertidal zone, thus
dredging, filling and bulkheading would have a significant impact
on their survival. The magnitude of the lost recruitment from
these causes has not been estimated.


Page 90

y44a1S9d01
Y3GNNO14 YALNIM
NOILVYDSIIN
4a1Sd01
Y3AGNNO14 HALNIM
SOINVDHO ANSSIL
YaLSd0O1
Y3GNNO14 YALNIM
ADOTOHLVWd SSOYHD
JNVH Gay ‘Y4aLSdO1
YAGNNOTA YALNIM

Laid

HSISTISHS JONVGNNEV JONVGNNaV

NI SINHOSIIOO NOLLNGIYLSIG NOILNGIYLSIG
VIdaLOVa  WNNVAJOYOVIN SIHLNAd saldadS JOYNOSsAY

VLOlId




Page 85

CN ‘uosipz ‘|| uolbay ‘Wd9 Sn
ON ‘Hojneag ‘19}Uag saueysiy jseayjnos
ly ‘aiiasiaeq ‘vq4 sn
U0N}99}01g Je}UBWUOIIAUW “}daq FN
Aroyeasasqgo |eoibojoay Ayayoqg-}uowe 7
ly ‘Aloyesoge] yoseasay jeyuawUOMAUg ‘ Wg S/N

(WesueHbeveN ‘ajoH spoo, ‘00H Apues)
VVON ‘OAN ‘Uolsiaiq sassad0/g Je}UaWUOUIAU

SLINVdIDILYWd AGNLS


Page 62

Another form of coupling, that of predator and prey, is
being modeled by numerous workers. Katz, et al. (1991) has
modeled and compared the outcomes of nonlethal and lethal
foraging on the persistence of predator-prey relations. In
lethal foraging the predator consumes entire individuals, and
thus has a potential to eliminate the prey species individual,
as well as entire populations. If there is a sufficient level of
predation, the population that constitutes the forage species can
be lost from the system. In non-lethal predation, the prey
species may feed upon tentacles, siphons, and other exposed
tissues of a range of invertebrate and vertebrate organisms.
Where non-lethal predation occurs, the predator population may
be sustained for extended periods of time without the principal
forage species being eliminated. This is especially true where
tissues may grow rapidly, thus replacing the tissues, organelles,
or collective body parts that were lost due to the predation.

Non-lethal foraging, a widely distributed phenomena in
marine habitats, is an important aspect in understanding
quantitative effects of contaminants or environmental degradation
in marine habitats. Obviously if organisms can forage without
killing off, in the classic sense (the lynx-hare relationship),
their forage species, the system can be sustained for extended
periods. The relevance of this work to our present interests is
that the interactions between predators and their prey are
complex and can change with time, especially where prey may be
consumed via lethal foraging. As pressures on such prey develop.
contaminants or environmental degradation may shift the su
of the predator population in a way such that there are a
in key prey stocks; those predators which feed or forage ina
non-lethal fashion may, with the added consequences of habitat
degradation, be placed in a situation where the prey tissues that
provide sustenance simply do not regrow at the same rates as ina
non-perturbed system.

It has been demonstrated in a number of experimental
situations that many bottom-dwelling invertebrates, which serve
as principal forage for marine groundfish, are affected by
relatively simply changes within the physical environment. For
example, in recent experiments done with excised gill tissue from
the scallop, Pecten novaezelandiae, certain tissue activities
responded to different categories of suspended silt (Stevens,
1987 and 1988). His study suggested that juvenile scallops (20
mm shell height) are less tolerant of suspended silt than larcer
(70 mm shell height), and that both small and large scallops have
reduced tolerance to fine moieties of silt/clay (less than iv
pm). Conclusions from his experiments suggested that incr
concentrations of silt with decreased particle size would r
in decreased efficiency and increased mortality rates of wh
scallops. This suggests that human induced disturbance of hb
sediments, such as occurs with bottom trawling and dredging,
affect scallop and other invertebrate populations dependent upon



Page 86

- —
74°00" i 50 72°40"

ROCKAWAY PONT

® fericate
Stations

© Broadscale
Stations:

40°20'+



Page 121

STRESSOR INDICATORS

Fresh water discharge
Climatic data

Pollutant loadings by major
category

Watershed land use patterns
by major category

Human population density/
demographics

Fishery landings statistics


Page 124

sens Buyjdwes jy

VWdae


TER En

Evaluate priority habitat issues.

Produce comprehensive assessments and reports.
Review ongoing habitat research.

Identify research needs.

Recommend research strategies.

Develop contingency plans to deal with long-term environmental
issues.

Conduct workshops on key habitat issues of regional concern.

Page 31


Page 7

Appendix A
Agenda for First NMFS Northeast Environmental Workshop


Page 46

Fisheries! efforts."* Recent recommendations of the
Congressional Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
encourage NOAA to make an increased commitment to its resource
management responsibilities to protect coastal ecosystems and
living marine resources.

The 1986 amendments to the Magnuson Act also encourage a closer
linkage between habitat conservation and fishery management, and
add teeth to NOAA Fisheries' habitat conservation program that
have heretofore been lacking. Kennedy (1988) summarizes the
advantages of the amended Magnuson Act amendments over the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The amendments put NOAA
Fisheries in a better position to recommend protection for
certain areas, as well as the_amount of mitigation necessary to
compensate for habitat losses? The new requirement of federal
agencies to provide detailed written responses to inquiries from
fishery management councils within 45 days on existing or
proposed projects creates a new consultation process that
requires more of action agencies than either the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act or the National Environmental Policy
Act. NOAA Fisheries now has a vehicle to address habitat
conservation issues on a scale that encompasses overall habitat
needs of living marine resources.

Policy Emphasis

This policy addresses all 12 "Implementation Strategies" of the
national NOAA Fisheries policy, but increases NER's emphasis on
Strategies 3 and 5. Strategy 3 encourages NOAA Fisheries to take
greater advantage of opportunities for habitat conservation
afforded by the Magnuson Act by establishing stronger
partnerships with regional fishery management councils. Strategy
5 advocates using state/federal (e.g., Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, or ASMFC) and council fishery management
plans to conserve habitat important to fishery resources.

3Memorandum for Regional, Science, and Office Directors and F/MB
Chiefs: "Priorities for NOAA Fisheries." James W. Brennan,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. 6 pages. 15 August 1988.

‘U.S. Congress. 1989. Coastal jeopardy: reversing the decline
and protecting America's coastal waters. Oversight Report of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Serial No. 100-E.

48 p.

5Kennedy, H. 1988. Habitat protection and the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 1986. Issue 44,
Anadromous Fish Law Memo, Natural Resources Law Institute, Lewis
and Clark Law School, Portland OR. 13 p.


Page 6

2.NMFS Northeast Region and interested state personnel
should review fishery population and production models
and biological effects results, to develop a method to
estimate resource losses related to reduced reproductive
potential, decreased growth rates, and other physiological
reactions to stress.

3. Identify a group of individuals in the habitat and resource-
related agencies in the Northeast who can be contacted in
the event of a fishery-mortality episode to develop an
estimate of resource loss.

4. Form an interagency working group in the Northeast to
plan a means for exchanging information concerning

restoration research and techniques, possibly through a
series of workshops and/or newsletters, and to work in
conjunction with the NOAA Restoration Center.

5. The NMFS Northeast Regional Operations Office should
canvass other habitat/resource agencies in the Northeast
to determine their plans to create and link electronic data
archives and networks.

6.Plan and initiate a series of interagency workshops to
improve methods for estimating habitat-related resource
losses and to produce state-of-the-art estimates of loss.
The first workshop should address losses in winter floun-
der stocks resulting from habitat loss or degradation.


Page 40
353146

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 228
———

/ Friday. November 25, 1983 / Notices
———

——

——

In carrying out its programs. NMFS’
activities will be conducted in a fashion
designed to achieve necessary. orderly
coastal development in a timely fashion.
while the renewability and productivity
of the Nation's living marine resources
are maintained or, where possible.
enhanced. This action will also benefit
other wildlife resources. such as
migratory birds.

Also. NMFS will use its scientific
capabilities to carry out the research
necessary to support its habitat
conservation objectives.

Implementation

Implementation of the policy will be
governed by general Federal policies
such as the multiple use of coastal
areas. Also. implementation will be
governed by the principle that the
Federal Government has an obligation
to conserve the habitats of living marine
resources for which it has primary
management responsibility or which are
the subject of NMFS program. whether
such habitats are under State or Federal
jurisdiction. This will require close
cooperation and coordination by NMFS
with other NOAA elements, Federal and
State agencies, the Regional Fishery
Management Councils, and the
commercial and recreational fishing
constituencies. [t is particularly
important that NMFS and the States
work cooperatively to define their
respective roies with each directing ils
habitat conservation activities
according to its responsibilities and
capabilities.

While this policy emphasizes NMFS’
domestic habitat conservation
responsibilities, it does not preclude
NMFS’ participation in international
habitat activities in support of
obligations of the U.S. under
international agreements. International
habitat issues will continue to be
addressed on a case-by-case basis
depending upon the demancs of the
United States under the provisions of
the governing treaty or convention.

Implementation Strategies

In consultation with its Regions and
Centers, NMFS' Central Cffice will
prepare guidance for the policy
implementation recognizing that each
Region has unique resource and/or
development issues that require
ficxibility in addressing parucular
problems. The following implementation
strategies wiil be used.

1. Each Region, working with the
appropriate Center. and the Central
Office, will establish a formal planning
and coordinating mechanism to
implement this pciicy on a continuing
basis. Ata minimum. this mechanism

will be use to: (1) Idzatify the living
marine resources of importance and the
maior habitat threats to thes resources:
‘2) enumerate the identified habitat
ssues in order of priority: (3) develop
strategies to address these issues: and
(4) oversee the integration of habitat
considerations thrcughout all NMFS’
programs. To accomplish the purposes
of this planning and ccordinating
mechanism, NMFS will call on the
Assistant Administrators of other
elements of NOAA (e.g.. Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management,
Office of Oceanography and Marine
Services). the States, the Regional
Fishary Management Councils and
others, as appropriate. The results of
this mechanism will be incorporated
into the objectives and subobjectives of
NMFS’ Strategic Plan as well as the
performance contracts of its employees.

2. NMFS Research Centers will
conduct environmental and ecological
research. including long-term studies
necessary to implement this policy.
Research efforts will be coordinated
with other elements of NOAA (e.g.,
National Ocean Service}, the States and
others, as appropriate. Research results
will provide an integral part of the
informationai basis for MNFS' activities
related to its conservation. maragement.
protection. and/or development
responsibilities. The needs of NMFS’
decisionmakers will be the essential
consideration in determining research
priorities. Specific research objectives
and activities will be determined
through Regional and Center
collaboration using the planning and
coordinating mechanism described
previously. Dissemination of
information to the public is and will
remain one of NMFS" major objectives.

3. Since the opportunities afforded by
the Magnuson Act are important factors
in developing and adopting this policy.
in the future NMFS will rely ta a greater
degree on its partnership with the
Regional Fishery Management Councils
in habitat conservation as it affects
those fisheries subject to Fishery
Management Plans developed by the
Councils. The Councils provide a unique
mix of representatives from the
commercial and recreational fishing
industries, conservation groups. State
and Federal Governments, and the
general public. Under this partnership,
NMFS will assist the Counc:ls to the
extent possible.

(a) The Regional Fishery Management
Councils should address habitat
considerations in their Fishery
Management Plans, where applicable,
based on the best available information.
While threats to fishery habitat posed

ty sources other than fishermen are not
subject to regulation under the
Magnuson Act. an adequate description
of the fishery, its maximum sustainable
yield, or its optimum yield may require
significant discugsion of important
habitat and threats to it.

Ata m:nimum. Fishery Management
Plans shouid include identiication and
descriptions of habitat requirements and
habitats of the stock(s) compnaing the
management unit; assessment of the
condition of these habitats. to the extent
possibie, as they relate to the continued
abundance and distribution of the
species: identification, where possible.
of causes of pollution and habitat
degradation: description of programs to
protect. restore. preserve and enhance
the habitat of stock(s) from destruction
or degradation: and, where appropriate.
proposal of measures intended to
preserve. protect. and restore habitat
determined to be necessary for the life
functions of the stock(s). Failure to
describe adequately the condition of the
fishery habitat and any likely changes to
it may raise questions under several of
the national standards and under
section 303(a)(1) of the Magnuson Act.
Where appropriate. existing Fishery
Management plans should be amended
to meet these standards.

{b) NMFS must be prepared to
respond to the Councils in an agreed
upon time when support or information
is requested. Section 304(e) of the
Magnuson Act authorizes NMFS to
acquire the basic knowledge necessary
to meet the Councils’ needs. Equally
important, NMFS will establish a
mechanism to systematically consider
and follow up on the Councils’
recommendations for habitat
conservation. If Counciis”
recommendations are not accepted.
NMFS will noufy them of the reasons. If
Councils’ recommendations are
accepted, NMFS wiil adopt them and
keep the Councils informed ona
continuing basis regarding the results of
actions taken to implement the
recommendations. If the Secretary does
not have the authority to carry out the
Councils’ recommendations. the
Secretary will submit the
recommendations to the authorities
having jurisdiction over the matter.

4. NMFS will continue to use
procedures and options available under
the FWCA and other advisory
authorities to influence decisions about
important habitats identified by NMFS.
These activities will include addressing
decisions regarding dredge and fill
projects, OCS oil and gas development.
ocean dumping, water diversion.
artificial impoundments, energy facility


Page 120

HABITAT INDICATORS |
@ Salinity (C)
@ Temperature (C)
@ pH (R)
@ Sediment characteristics (C)

@ Water depth (C)


Page 19

Appendix C
NMFS Northeast Environmental Council Issue Paper

| Preceding Page Blank ‘

‘ —





whether a development could affect fish or their habitat
should fall on project developers, not on government and the
councils. Many managed resources are at critically low
levels and will need habitat conservation as well as fishery
management to be rebuilt to desired levels. Addressing this
cooperatively within the limited resources of the regional
fishery management councils and NMFS remains a critical
challenge in implementing the 1990 Magnuson Act amend-
ments and the Northeast Environmental Policy.

A. Rosenburg provided insight into the stock assess-
ment process and how just such a process could relate to
habitat assessment. After a basic introduction to population
dynamics, he focused on how pollution/habitat loss factors
would fit into population models. He concluded that any
substantial population effects of habitat degradation could
be determined through quantitative modeling. These effects
would be manifested as mortality, reduced growth, and/or
reduced reproductivity. With model outputs depicting re-
duced growth, reduced reproductive potential, and increased
mortality, appropriate steps could be taken to include such
effects into stock assessment models and the stock-rebuild-
ing strategies required in managing the fishery. As this
approach requires quantified information, synthesis would
be needed for applying effects at the organism level to the
population. Similarly, refinement of models and the devel-
opment of methods to apply existing studies to the models
would be needed.

In summary, the panel challenged workshop partici-
Pants to incorporate habitat information and trends condi-
tions into the fishery management process by identifying
and quantifying population effects.

PANEL NO. 2: RESEARCH
INFORMATION ON AMOUNTS AND
MECHANISMS OF RESOURCE AND
HABITAT LOSSES

A. Calabrese and'A. White of the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, G. Thayer of the Southeast Fisheries Sci-
ence Center, M. Monaco of the National Ocean Service’s
Strategic Assessments Branch, D. Simpson of the Connecti-
cut Department of Environmental Protection, and S. Jordan
of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources presented
a series of talks on the existing scientific information con-
cerning resource and habitat loss in both state and federal
waters. The topic was introduced by Calabrese who noted
that resource loss from environmental degradation can oc-
cur through: (1) direct mortality; (2) reduced reproductive
potential; and/or (3) contamination which renders organ-
isms undesirable or unsafe for human consumption.

Direct mortality can be caused by many anthropogenic
means, with death occurring in time frames varying from
minutes to years. Given these variables, this loss is not
always quantifiable. However, in major events, such as the
1976 anoxia off New Jersey, the resource loss through direct
mortality is both observable and quantifiable.

Page 3

Reduced reproductive potential represents a mortality
factor to the population, but not to the affected adults. This
effect may take several years to manifest itself clearly, as it
becomes detectable in the population. Estimates of lost
reproductive potential can be approached through labora-
tory and field studies, in combination with mathematical
modeling. One attempt being made in the Northeast Fisher-
ies Science Center is to determine the effect of environmen-
tal contamination on winter flounder reproductive success
in Long Island Sound. This is being done by controlled
spawning -- in the laboratory -- of flounder from both
degraded and reference areas, and then by comparing the
fecundity and egg/larval viability of fish associated with the
two areas. Field studies of larval and juvenile survival and
growth will be made as well. The information collected will
then be used in a population model.

Contamination of resource organisms may not neces-
sarily cause death. Often, pollution renders organisms
unsafe for human consumption, thereby removing them
from harvest. This type of resource loss is common in the
coastal clam fisheries and should be quantifiable.

Following this introduction, panel members presented
research findings indicating connections between environ-
mental conditions and resource productivity.

A. White reviewed the effects on Georges Bank, Nan-
tucket Shoals, and Gulf of Maine shellfish resources from
paralytic shellfish toxin contamination. Since a significant
Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery has been closed
and a potential sea scallop roe fishery is precluded from
beginning, these phytoplankton-based toxins present an
excellent example of a quantifiable resources loss due to
biotoxin contamination.

While significant questions exist on the cause of this
continuing biotoxin event, it is hypothesized that the under-
lying algal blooms may be enhanced by nutrient loading in
coastal waters, with transport to, and residence in, the
Georges Bank semi-enclosed system. The future of these
fisheries depend partly on the future distribution of these
toxin-carrying organisms. A scientific research program is
being planned by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to
investigate the mechanisms perpetuating these toxins, as
managementstrategies are being developed between NOAA
and the Food and Drug Administration to close fisheries for
human health and safety.

Similarly, in the inshore environment, sewage contami-
nation has forced closure of many shellfish beds. Bacteria
or viruses in sewage-contaminated water are accumulated
by shellfish during their normal pumping activity, which can
then cause human health problems if the shellfish are eaten
raw. M. Monaco discussed the status of shellfish beds in the
National Shellfish Register. Results for 1990 showed 62
percent of Northeast waters approved, 10 percent condi-
tional, 3 percent restricted, and 25 percent prohibited, a
slight decrease in the prohibited category from 1989. While
there is presently noassessment of the value of unharvestable
tesources from these areas, plans exist to add this quantita-
tive measure to the report.


Page 132

kk ~~

Table of Contents

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS

7
PREFACE

9
INTRODUCTION

43
CHAPTER ONE
The Gulf as an Ecosystem

24
CHAPTER TWO
The Value of the Gulf

29
CHAPTER THREE
Stresses on the Gulf

a1
CHAPTER FOUR
Effects of Stresses on the Gulf

53
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary and Future Outlook

58
REFERENCES AND
SUGGESTED READINGS

63
GLOSSARY


Page 110

WHY IS EMAP NEEDED?

EPA cannot answer critical questions
about the status of the environment

@ What is the extent and magnitude
of pollution impacts on the
Nation’s ecosystems?

-- Acres
- %
-- Degree of impact

@ Are things getting better or
worse? Where? At what rate?

@ What are the factors associated
with degrading or improving
conditions?

e Are regulatory programs and
policies effective?


Page 69

A very interesting sidelight to the issue is, again, a
temporal one. Recent research (Reinfelder and Fisher, 1991)
indicates that zooplankters, such as copepods, have short gut
residence times and a digestive strategy that allows only for the
assimilation of soluble materials. Copepods feeding on senescent
cells with great amounts of moribund materials should be able to
obtain more proteins (algal toxins?), than from rapidly dividing
cells. Thus, success or "evil" might be bridged to synchrony of
blooms of phytoplanters and copepods and the relative length and
efficacy of their digestive tracts.

HOW TO GET THERE FROM HERE?

The subject of my talk was entitled "Environmental Quality
and Resource Health - Quantifying Resource Loss." In what might
appear, to some, to be an unguided wandering through a morass of
papers and subjects, I have tried to point out a number of the
biological variables that will be important in the future in
terms of understanding those biological processes that govern
distributions and abundances of marine fishes and shellfish.

This narrative reflects a small sampling of the literally
thousands of papers having to do with various aspects of marine
biology, pollution, and the associated fisheries, appearing each
month. The important point is that there are so many variables
which can be affected by man's activities that it would be
impossible to fold each of them into some "model" that might
moderately reflect how a particular fisheries would develop under
a given set of conditions. The natural physical conditions in
themselves can vary considerably albeit we can put error bars and
ranges on most physical measurements having to do with fishery
habitat. Once we begin to consider, however, the interactions
that occur between the hundreds or thousands of species of biota
that are involved in the foodwebs of the principal fish, or what
goes on in a diatom cell or copepod gut, and attempt to factor in
the various variables having to do with man's activities, the
entire picture becomes extremely clouded.

Many people have thought about this at great length. The
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
meetings on biological effects monitoring (McIntyre and Pearce,
1980) tried to elicit from a range of experts what the more
important biological parameters might be that could be used in
monitoring endeavors. Other national and international workshops
have attempted to do the same thing (Malins, et al., 1988).
Beginning in the past two decades, it has been fashionable to
believe that chemical and physical variables might be relatable
to various disease syndromes that manifest themselves in fish
populations under stress (Malins, et al, 1982). Others,
particularly physiologists and biochemists, believe that it might
be possible to relate chemical and certain physical changes in
fisheries habitats to changes in the physiology and biochemistry


Page 24

Discussion:

Resource losses from environmental degradation or habitat
loss can occur in several ways:

1. Mortality of organisms
2. Reduced reproductive potential of organisms

3. Contamination of organisms rendering them
unsafe or undesirable for consumption by
predators, including man.

Mortality as a consequence of pollution or other
environmental degradation can be the result of direct
physiological effects, increased predation because of behavioral
changes induced in the target organisms, or decreased vitality
and immunity leading to disease. The time required for death of
the resource organisms may range from minutes to years depending
on the concentration of the pollutant or the severity of the
habitat change.

Detection of mortality from environmental causes is very
difficult in heavily fished stocks, because the major decreases
in abundance which occur from fishing mortality obscure any other.
effects from environmental degradation or habitat destruction.
Annual abundance estimates determined for heavily-fished stocks
will yield no useful information regarding non-fishing mortality;
such information must be obtained from "body counts" at the scene
of fish kills, by use of mathematical models, or by monitoring
disappearance of early life stages from their habitats.

luce roductive potential represents mortality for a
stock or population, but not for the exposed adults.
Accordingly, this mortality may take several years to manifest
itself clearly and may be difficult to recognize and monitor by
means of abundance estimates. Estimates of lost reproductive
potential can be made by 1.) experimentally establishing the
reproductive response to contaminant concentrations and
monitoring the contaminant in the habitat, and/or 2.) assembling
circumstantial evidence (abundance vs. contaminant concentration)
in field studies. Either method eventually requires the use of a
mathematical model to produce an estimate of reduced juvenile
abundance. There is a possibility of producing estimates of
winter flounder losses in Long Island Sound by these methods
using data obtained from studies conducted by the Milford
Laboratory of the Northeast Fisheries Center.

Contamination of resource organisms may in no way contribute
to their mortality, but render them unsafe for human consumption,
thereby removing them from harvest. Although the stocks would
not suffer under those circumstances, the resources would be
lost, as long as they remained contaminated. Detection of


Page 10

11:30-12:00

12:00-12:30

12:30-2:00

2:00-4:00

&

Gulf of Maine Program - An Initiative in Regional
Cooperation.

- P. Hughes, MA Coastal Zone Management Office
Information Needs for Habitat Protection and
Restoration/Presentation of Draft Cooperative
Strategy for Quantifying Losses.

- T. Bigford, Chief Habitat and Protected
Resources Division, NE Region

Lunch
- PANEL 1: B. Higgins, Panel Chair
Activities and Interests of Councils and

Commissions in Expanding Habitat Protection.
Presentations and discussion involving all.

MARCH 14 - THURSDAY

8:30-9:00

9:00-9:30

9:30-11:30

11:30-12:45

12:45-2:45

12:45-3:00

3:00-3:45

3:45-4:00

Registration

Summary of first day's proceedings.

- M. Ingham, Chairman, Environmental Council
- PANEL 2: A. Calabrese, Panel Chair
Research Information Concerning Amount and
Mechanisms of Resource and Habitat Losses.
Presentations and discussion involving all.
LUNCH

- PANEL 3: T. Bigford, Panel Chair

Habitat Loss, Mitigation & Restoration.
Presentations and discussion involving all.

BREAK

Discussion of cooperative strategy for quantifying
losses.

- T. Bigford, Moderator
Summary of proceedings and conclusions.

- M. Ingham, Chairman, Environmental Council



Page 29

NORTHEAST REGION NMFS
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
13 MARCH 1991

Bob Pawlowski, Exec. Sec. (NER)
Tom Bigford (NER)

Bob Learson (NEC)

Tony Calabrese (NEC)

Anne Studholme (NEC)

Jay O’Reilly (NEC)

Mert Ingham, Chairman (NEC)

— ———s

Vo
Preceding Page Blank !

r





Page 91

*sjueiBiw jeuoseas aie
saldeds aduls 214s }OU |]IM S[aAeg] Uaping Apoq
3nq ‘Bulduinp jo uonessas Guimojljoj aseasioap

J}]IM 49}Sqo] pue JapUNO]} 492UIM Jo $}Ua}U09
3nB ul s}ueuiwejUod o1UeBs0 yo sjanay ‘GH

*jno paseud si Buiduinp

yoiym ut pouad ay} Buunp sajis a}eo1das
ay} ye Aaid o1yjuaq yo Aqyiqeyeae ay}

Ul S}14S Buimojjo} aBueyo [JIM sai9ads 1ay}0
pue 49}sqo] ‘JapuNoY 19}UIM Jo JaIP AY] “E#

"suONe}S adUaIajal

Jaueao AjaAnejas ay} 0} JePILUIS aq [JIM SaqS

peynijod ysow ay} 3e sazesqayaAu! o1yJUaqeBaw

pue ysijuy Jo UONqusip pue aouepuNge ‘saisads
aBe10} a1yjueq pue s}ueUILUe}UOD }UaWIpas UI s}JIYS
peye4jsuowep pue Bulduinp jo uonessas Bulmoyjo4 “7 #

(sasay}odAp)
SADNVHO G3ALVdlDILNV


Page 11

FIRST ENVIRONMENTAL WORKSHOP PANELS

PANEL 1. Activities and Interests of Councils and Commissions in
Expanding Habitat Protection

Bruce Higgins - Chair
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA

Tom Hoff ~- Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management Council Needs
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover DE

Gail Johnson - New England Fishery Management Council Needs
New England Fishery Management Council
South Harpswell, ME

Andy Rosenburg - Stock Assessment versus Habitat Assessment
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA

PANEL 2. Research Information Concerning Amount and Mechanisms of
Resource and Habitat Losses.

Tony Calabrese - Chair
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Milford, cT

Alan White - Paralytic Shellfish Toxins and Their Impact
on Offshore Shellfish Stocks
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA

Gordon Thayer - Research on Functional Values and Mitigation
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center, Beaufort, NC

Mark Monaco - Shellfish Water Quality
NOS Strategic Assessments Branch, Rockville, MD

David Simpson - Low DO Impact on LMRs in Long Island Sound
Division of Marine Fisheries, Waterford, CT

Steve Jordan - Estuarine Communities as Indicators of
Environmental Stress
Department of Natural Resources, Anapolis, MD
PANEL 3. Habitat Loss, Mitigation, and Restoration.

Tom Bigford - Policy Considerations
NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, MA

Mark Monaco - Quantifying Habitat Trends
NOS Strategic Assessments Branch, Rockville, MD

Mario DelVicario - Mitigating Habitat Losses
EPA Region II, New York, NY

Gordon Thayer - Restoring Degraded Habitats
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center, Beaufort, NC


Page 97

Appendix J
Handout and Overheads for Review of the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program

eer ere
Preceding page bank


Page 102

critical, and meeting this need by simply aggregating data
from many individual, local, and short-term networks that are
fragmented in space or time has proven difficult, if not impos-
sible. EMAP will focus specifically on national and regional
scales over periods of years to decades, collecting data on in-
dicators of ecological condition from multiple ecosystems
and integrating them to assess environmental change. This
approach, along with EMAP?’s statistically-based design, dis-
tinguishes it from most current monitoring efforts, which tend
to be short-term or locally-focused. A long-term, integrated,
multi-ecosystem monitoring program offers the advantages of
earlier detection of problems and improved resolution of
their extent and magnitude, while enabling formulation of
more cost-effective regulatory or remedial actions.

Environmental monitoring data are collected by EPA to
meet the requirements of a variety of regulatory programs.
Many federal agencies collect environmental data specifical-
ly to manage particular ecological resources. Efficient execu-
tion of EPA’s mandate to protect the Nation's ecosystems re-
quires, therefore, that EMAP complement, supplement, and
integrate data and expertise from the regulatory offices within
EPA and from other agencies. EMAP should not be perceived
as a substitute for ongoing programs designed to meet objec-
tives other than its own. Interagency codrdination is actively
being pursued with the Departments of Interior, Commerce,
and Agriculture. This codrdination avoids duplicative moni-
toring efforts, facilitates exchange of existing data for use in
the refinement of monitoring networks, and increases the ex-
pertise available to quantify and understand observed status
and trends. EMAP will also draw upon the expertise and ac-
tivities of the EPA Regional Offices, States, and the interna-
tional community.

Ecological monitoring programs of the 1990’s and beyond
must be able to respond and adapt to new issues and per-
spectives within the context of a continuing effort to detect
trends and patterns in environmental change. These demands
will be met by EMAP through a flexible design that can ac-
commodate as yet undefined questions and objectives as
well as changing criteria of performance and scientific capa-
bility. Further, EMAP’s design will encourage analysis, re-
view, and reporting ‘processes that foster discovery of unan-
ticipated results and promote the widespread dissemination
of scientifically-sound information. Periodic evaluations of
the program’s direction and emphasis will be the key to
maintaining its viability and relevance while retaining the
continuity of the basic data sets. These evaluations will serve
to preclude the “aging” that typically hinders long-term moni-
toring efforts. :

Planning & Design

The major activities in 1990 around which EMAP is being
developed are:

Q Indicator Evaluation and Testing—evaluation and
testing of indicators of ecological condition;

Q Network Design—design and evaluation of ime-
grated, statistical monitoring networks and proto-
cols for collecting status and trends data on indi-
cators;

Qs Landscape Characterization—nationwide charac-
terization of ecological resources in areas within
the EMAP sampling network to establish a base-
line for monitoring and assessment; and

Q = Near-Coastal Demonstration Project—imple-
mentation of regional scale surveys to define the
Current status of our estuarine resources.

Although the goal is to establish the program in all catego-
ries of ecosystems, the initial emphasis is on testing and im-
plementing the program in estuaries, near-coastal wetiands,
and inland surface waters, codrdinating these activities with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey. Because precipitation and air quality are two important
factors influencing ecosystems, EMAP also will contribute to
the evaluation and maintenance of the multiagency atmos-
pheric deposition networks currently codrdinated by the Na-
tional Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (i.e., the Na-
tional Trends Network/National Dry Deposition Network).
These ecosystems and deposition networks offer immediate
opportunities to demonstrate the EMAP approach.

EMAP also will contribute to the development of a re-
search program in environmental statistics. This program will
refine the statistical framework for the remaining types of
ecosystems in preparation for full implementation of EMAP
in 1995 and beyond. Relying heavily on expertise from aca-
demia and industry, this program will develop methods and
approaches for: (a) analyzing and interpreting spatial and
temporal trends in indicators across regions; (b) incorporating
and substituting historical data and data from ongoing moni-
toring programs into EMAP; (c) designing efficient quality as-
surance programs for ecological monitoring programs; and
(d) diagnosing the likely causes of adverse conditions in eco-
systems.

Indicator Evaluation & Testing

Purpose

EMAP will evaluate and use indicators that collectively de-
scribe the overall condition of an ecosystem. Measurements
of ecosystem condition should reflect characteristics clearly
valued by society. Measurement methods must be standard-
ized and quality-assured so that spatial patterns and temporal
trends in condition within and among regions can be accu-
rately assessed.

Strategy

Indicators in three categories will be evaluated:


Page 118

RESPONSE INDICATORS

Benthic species composition,
biomass, and abundance (C)

Relative abundance of large burrow-
ing bivalves (D/R)

Fish species composition, size, and
abundance (D/R)

Fish gross pathology/histopathology
(D/R)

Contaminant concentrations in
target fish/shellfish (D)

Aesthetic indicators (D)

-- Flotsam

-- Jetsam

-- Odor

-- Water clarity


Page 65

(usually an early instar) these parasitic crabs find their way
into appropriate bivalve or tunicate hosts. If they do not
occupy the definitive host, they generally perish. Recent work
done in New Zealand again suggests that this is, in fact, the
case. Moreover where populations of a pinnotherid species occupy
two different hosts, for instance the green-lip and blue mussels,
they have been determined to represent different "host races"
(subspecies), a conclusion "supported by the degree of genetic
differentiation between" the two subspecies (Stevens, 1990).

Once more, one raises the question of how this relates to marine
fishes? The fact is that many fish, but especially the
anadromous salmonids, do orient to certain cues coming from
appropriate habitats. Much of the life history of these fish is
tied to such cues. Research done recently by Pearson, et al,
(1990) suggests that cues within the environment will lead
teleosts to home ranges, habitats, or hosts not appropriate for
normal growth and survival. Obviously, when fish do not occupy
the appropriate environment, various disruptions of energetic
schemes and behavioral loops or connections are affected; organic
contaminants can interfere with such loops.

Hundreds of investigators also have determined that feeding
activities are carried out by subtle cues provided by the forage
species or foodstuffs. Laboratory research suggests that often
these cues can be "swamped" by foreign substances, or cues, from
contaminants in the environment. There are scores, hundreds, of
papers on this subject.

COVERUPS AND FOOTSTEPS

In addition to pollutants affecting cues important in normal
behavior of marine organisms, other endogenous phenomena may
affect, or reflect, how animals deal with a range of toxic
substances. For instance, marine organisms stressed by toxic
metals may invoke the use of low molecular weight, metal binding
proteins often referred to as metallothioneins. Considerable
work has been done with this group of proteins in the sense that
their presence reflects exposure to and uptake of toxic metals;
the metallothioneins often function to sequester metals in a way
that will prevent their harming essential physiological and
biochemical processes in the exposed individual. These are real
coverups. By measuring the metallothioneins, however, one can
get an indication of the exposure to contaminants and even assess
the degree of exposure. Such analyses point to footsteps left by
the presence of metals, even where the latter are not to be
found. Recently NMFS scientists (Engel, 1988) have done work to
determine how much biological variability there might be in
metallothionein responses, especially as the responses are being
used in long-term monitoring programs. As time and tide wait for
no man, time of year, or the condition of the organism, may
affect the operation of metallothionein sequestering systems; for


Page 71

recent paper, based on work done on Chesapeake Bay, "Use of
Historical Data Sets to Determine Causes of Variability in Long-
term Trends in the Abundance of White Perch in the York and
Choptank Rivers" (Boreman, et al, 1990), contains a number of
salient paragraphs directed to this particular theme. That
working group suggested that "...environmental variables should
be biologically realistic, match the temporal and spatial scale
of the stock measure, and have some adequate resolution to detect
important changes." They went on to define those environmental
and water quality variables appropriate for assessments of the
white perch and other anadromous stocks.

Boreman, et al (1990) went on to note that the "...general
types of data necessary are believed to be known, (but)
environmental modelling of fish recruitment poses profound
difficulties." They elaborated upon the different temporal and
spatial scales on which typical assessment and environmental data
analyses occur. Assessment information is generally broad based
and the data are garnered at least two times a year, and
sometimes more frequently. They also noted that fish recruitment
usually occurs once per year for a given stock. The real issue
is, however, that environmental data are often taken once per
year, and perhaps only once in history. Experiments are often
performed in a laboratory without concern for when reproduction,
spawning, recruitment, and growth might occur. Thus our
environmental data are not easily relatable to assessment data or
parameters, or to the more important phases of the actual life
histories of fish.

The Working Group on Chesapeake Bay white perch also was
concerned that errors occur "...because we do not know exactly
what environmental parameters affect recruitment to a given fish
population." Again, there is "foggy" thinking here; the
continued emphasis on the recruitment process does not really
take into consideration how environmental variables might affect
fish when they impress their effects at odgenesis, time of
release of eggs, or early growth, and during subsequent
metamorphosis and growth.

Boreman et al (1990) go on to suggest that "Despite the
statistical and philosophical difficulties mentioned it does seem
worthwhile to pursue environmentally influenced models of
recruitment. Of course, one must be aware of the difficulties,
but not allow them to cripple any inquiry." They further note
that the foregoing problems only serve to emphasize the need for
collection of consistent, long-term data sets, so that certain
statistical considerations can be addressed. Obviously,
environmental scientists concerned about habitat quality will
have to make certain selections as to the data that should be
collected. Once these decisions are made the data must be
collected so that they can have reference to key life history
points in a particular fish species; these may not be solely


Page 16

Jon Kurland 401-782-6225
NMFS NE Regional Office FTS-838-6225
Gordon Thayer 919-728-3595
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center

Geoffrey Scott 803-762-1200
NMFS Charleston Laboratory

Dean Parsons 301-427-2347
NMFS Office of Fisheries, FTS-427-2347
Conservation and Management

Carolyn Brown . 301-427-2319
NMFS Office of Research FTS-427-2319
and Environment

Stanley Chanesman 301-427-2325
NMFS Office of Protected Resources FTS-427-2325
Tom Hoff 302-674-2331
Mid Atlantic Fisheries FTS-487-6235
Management Council

Gail Johnson 617-231-0422
New England Fisheries FTS-835-8457
Management Council

Pat Fiorelli 617-231-0422
New England Fisheries FTS-835-8457
Management Council .
Mark Monaco 301-443-8921
NOS Strategic Assessment Branch FTS~443-8921
Kenneth Finkelstein 617-835-6317
NOAA Coastal Resource Coordinator FTS~392-6317
Ralph Psapia 617-965-5100
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FTS~829-9208
Stewart Fefer 617-965-5100
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FTS~829-9208
Ken Carr

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FTS-492-1759
Joseph McKeon 603-528-8754

USFWS, Office of Fisheries Assistance FTS-834-3750

John Paul
EPA Environmental Research Lab FTS-838-6037


Page 99

United States Office of Modeling,

Environmental Protection Monitoring Systems and

Agency Quality Assurance (RD-680)
Washington DC 20460

Research and Development EPA/600/9-90/001 January 1990

Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment Program

Overview

Preceding page blank —


Page 21

December 3, 1990

NER/NEC ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
ISSUE PAPER

Issue: Need to quantify losses of living marine resources
resulting from environmental degradation or habitat loss.

Background: There are frequent qualitative references to loss of
fishery resources resulting from pollution and other forms of
environmental degradation, or destruction of coastal or estuarine
habitats, but quantitative estimates of the amount or value of
lost resources are rare. Such estimates could improve NMFS'
ability to influence decisions on resource-related issues, to
account for pollution and degradation impacts in management
strategies, and to enhance general appreciation for living
resources and their habitats.

The statements made in fishery management plans regarding
resource losses due to habitat loss or degradation are
characteristically non-quantitative and can be summarized as
follows: Pollution and habitat loss are bad for fish. How can a
resource or environmental agency act on an assertion that vague?
NMFS expends a great deal of effort trying to accurately quantify
the effects of fishing on stocks, but comparatively little trying
to quantify the effects of environmental degradation or habitat
loss on fish populations.

In 1976 an unusually well-documented event involving
resource losses (probably caused by natural environmental
changes) occurred in the inner New York Bight. A rather large
(8,600 km*) area of bottom water became critically hypoxic or
anoxic, resulting in losses in shellfish stocks estimated to
amount to:

141,500 tons of surf clam meats worth (dockside) $120,000,000

51,000 tons of ocean quahog meats worth (dockside) $34,000,000

8.8-12.9% of sea scallops worth (dockside) $ 72,000
96.6 tons of lobsters worth (dockside) $ 410,000

$154,482,000

(Source: Swanson, R. L. and C. J. Sindermann, 1979. NOAA
Professional Paper No. 11)

The resource losses in the 1976 hypoxia event were not
permanent, and the shellfish populations have returned to pre-
event levels, generally. In the case of the surf clam population
it rapidly grew to a size larger than the pre-event size, because
the hypoxia had such an adverse effect on predators.

f Preceding Page Blank





Page 95

SCALE OF "RECOVERY"
OF "12 MILE-DUMP SITE"

1976 NY BIGHT ANOXIA

NJ COASTAL HYPOXIA

EMIGRATION OF FISH

SHELLFISH CLOSURE

CHRISTIAENSEN BASIN

REPLICATE STATIONS
* .

| Potrtetie | Poboprrdedt | es ee

10 100 1000 10000
KM 2

r


Page 33

Appendix E
NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy


Page 133

Executive Summary

Peter Ralaton//Island Institute

ECOGNIZING THAT THE
Gulf of Maine isa
common resource of

inestimable value to their residents,
the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, the States of Maine and
New Hampshire, and the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts have joined in
a cooperative effort to protect its
ecological integrity and the many uses
that depend upon its continued good
health.

The Culfisa marine ecosystem de-
fined by currents and tides, nutrient
and the migration of marine
ical

cye
animals; it pays no heed to po!
boundaries separating states, prov-

inces, or nations. The living marine
resources of the ecosystem may spend
partof their lives in coastal waters and
part in offshore waters, partin Cana-
dian waters and partin the waters of
the United States; many species of fish,
marine mammals, and birds lead
transboundary lives. Itisimportantso.
remember thatenvironmental damage
in one part of the Gulf can be felt in
another and thata series of seemingly
negligible effects can be of major
harmful consequence in sum.

This report was compiled to illus-
trate that the Gulf supports diverse, and
sometimes conflicting, uses; thatitisan
ecosystem that is best managed using

ecological principles which do not “see”

political boundaries; that the sustained
use of the Gulf’s resources, not only by
present but by future generations, will
depend upon wise stewardship of the
Gulf environment; that cooperative ef-
forton the part of the bordering States
and Provinces will be required to pro-
tect the Gulf; and that prevention of
degradation is less costly, more effi-
cient, and more effective than remedial
programs.

The Gulf of Maine is of great worth
not only to the people of the Gulf
region who depend upon it for eco-
nomic, aesthetic, and recreational
value, but also to the many others from
outside the region who enjoy or profit
from its resources. Among the most
productive bodies of water on earth,
the Gulf has nourished a thriving
maritime heritage for several centuries.

The growth of the human popula-
tion and consequent developmentin
the Gulf region have resulted in a series
of insults to the Gulf environment.
Tons of raw and partially treated
sewage are discharged into the Gulf
each day, Industrial discharges and
urban and agricultural runoffall
introduce toxic contaminantsand

bacteria to marine and estuarine
waters on achronic, and at times
acute, basis. Increased fishing effort
has reduced fish stocks to all time lows.
Coastal development has encroached
onenvironmentally significant marine
wetlands. Accidental spills of oiland
other toxic material place additional
stresses upon the Gulfenvironment,

Evidence of these stresses can be
found throughout the Gulf. Although
limited data exist to assess adequately
the environmental quality trendsin
the Gulf of Maine, the warning signs of
degradation are clear in research con-
ducted during the last decade:

—highly industrialized harbors such
as Boston and Saint John are seriously
degraded; itis unlikely that such places
will ever regain all of their natural
functions;

— relatively undeveloped embayments,
such as Penobscot Bay, exhibit elevated
levels of contaminants in sediments,

— sediments in the deep basins of the
offshore Gulf of Maine contain low but
unnatural concentrations of toxins,
indicating that contaminantsare being
transported throughout the Gulf.


Mario P. DelVicario
EPA Region II

Bob Nyman
EPA Region II

Cynthia Pring-Ham
EPA Region I

Richard Tomer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

David Killoy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Patricia Hughes
Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office

Jeffrey Benoit
Massachusetts Coast Zone
Management Office

David Simpson
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection

Linda Gunn
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection

Eleanor Mariani
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection

Steven Jordan
Maryland Department of
Natural Resources

Leigh Bridges
Massachusetts Division of
Marine Fisheries

212-264-5170
FTS-264-5170

212-264-5170
FTS-264-5170

FTS-835-4437
617-565-4437

617-647-8405

617-727-9530

617-673-5100

203-443-0166

203-443-0166

203-443-0166

301-974-3767

617-727-3193

Page 17


Page 61

of marine invertebrates. In tandem, the larvae, early juveniles,
and adult stages of the meroplankton, as well as the holoplank-
ton, provide food stuff to juvenile fish and filter feeders.

Related to the coordination of plankton blooms and spawning,
it has been noted that diel movements of zooplankton organisms
above certain substrata (reefs) occur in a way so that these
(organisms depending of their life history strategies) are
available in part for planktivorous fishes, but also asa
strategy to prevent loss of plankton from key habitat essential
to their survival (Hobson and Chess, 1986). Depending on ambient
light, the generally larger forms of zooplankton tend to be local
residents that, by day, are sheltered, or hidden, in bottom
substrata or as swarms close to the substrata, but, at night make
excursions to the surface waters to feed. Transients in this
system are mostly holoplankters, including certain copepods,
euphausids, and chaetognaths; these open water transients,
brought by current systems to the reef areas, function in the
water column at night to a great degree to supply food to
predator finfishes. The key point in the work by Hobson and
Chess is that temporal variations in light intensity foster
behaviors which facilitate feeding by fish but also survival for
certain of the planktonic organisms. Again, the light cues were,
in part, mediated by the physical conditions (ambient. light) but
also may be modified by other conditions such as turbidity or
currents. The latter can be affected by man's activities.

In addition to physical cues that might lead to behavioral
changes, including diel movements, or might result in changes in
feeding (concentration of predators and forage species by current
systems), chemical cues may foster or inhibit feeding. For
instance, zooplankton, including copepods, have been observed to
graze on red tide organisms that are unique to their particular
habitats. The red tide species, Ptychodiscus brevis, has been
speculated possibly to inhibit feeding or to perhaps induce
paralysis or other physiological incapacitation of predator
copepods, when this red tide phytoplankton species is ingested.
Turner and Tester (1989) noted that three copepod species
ingested the cells of Ptychodiscus in direct proportion to their
availability over a broad range of cell concentrations. On the
other hand, two copepod species either did not ingest, or
ingested only a small number of cells, at similar concentrations.
Thus there is a selection depending on species. This information
is important not only in relation to "red tide" phenomena but
also suggests that the qualities of habitats can affect feeding
and thus indirectly, reproduction, recruitment, and growth. The
work reported was done was off the Carolinas, and during a period
when P. brevis bloomed in unusual proportions in a "foreign"
environment. The authors saw it as noteworthy that the three
copepod species that ingested the P. brevis were all forms which
share similar coastal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, which also
constitutes the principal range of P. brevis.


Page 130

1. The Parties agree to establish a Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
to discuss and act upon environmental issues of common concern including but not
limited to:

- the protection and conservation of the ecological balance within the Gulf of
Maine ecosystem;

- the problem of marine debris and medical waste;
- the relationship between land use and the marine environment;
- the sustainable use of resources within the Gulf of Maine;

- cooperative programs to better protect and conserve the Gulf’s natural
resources.

2. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment will be composed of two
representatives from each of the Gulf of Maine States and Provinces to be appointed
by their respective Governors and Premiers within 60 days of the effective date of
this Agreement.

3. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment will produce its first annual
report on environmental trends and conditions including specific recommendations
on a Gulf of Maine Action Plan within 15 months of its appointment.

4, The Parties agree to minimize actions that would result in degradation of
environmental quality or depletion of resources that individually or cumulatively
could result in significant adverse impacts on resources leading to loss of sustainable
use or environmental viability.

5. The Parties agree to design and develop a coordinated monitoring program to
provide improved information for future decisions concerning the Gulf.

6. The Parties agree that the successful conservation of Gulf resources will require the
development of additional agreements or protocols on specific issues or concerns
that may be raised from time to time.

SIGNATURES:

jonowable John M. Buchanan
Premier, Nova Scotia

dba TT Vn

Honourable Frank McKenna
Premier, New Brunswick

© Governor, Masga¢husetts

| /Henorable Mic a S. Dukakis
h


Page 114

MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS ADDRESSED

@ Low dissolved oxygen concen-
tration

® Contamination
@ Habitat modification
@ Cumulative impact

@ Emerging environmental
problems


Page 116

SOdUIAOI [ea!4ydesHoabolg aya

Vda



Page 4

Low dissolved oxygen levels in coastal waters as a
cause for habitat and resource loss were discussed by D.
Simpson, citing data from a Long Island Sound study by the
state of Connecticut. Trawl surveys in western Long Island
Sound have shown a distinct decrease in the number of
species at oxygen concentrations below 3-4 mg/l. American
lobsters appeared to be somewhat more tolerant than finfish
and were captured at concentrations near 1 mg/l, while
finfish populations were less abundant below 3 mg/l. The
duration of survival of finfish and shellfish at these de-
pressed levels has not been determined, and the relationship
between oxygen concentration and mortality has not yet
been established.

Estuarine fish communities were described by S. Jor-
dan as possible indicators of environmental stress. In
several cases, fish populations in Chesapeake Bay water-
sheds were shown to be on the increase where pollution
abatement measures were implemented. As habitat contin-
ues to improve, it was surmised that a concomitant increase
in the number and variety of fish species residing in the area
would occur, as the communities return to their historical
baseline. In addition, a premise was presented that salinity
should be more closely studied as a factor in the post-larval
survival of striped bass. Specific data were referenced
showing a relationship among amount of runoff, salinity
levels, and the Maryland young-of-the-year index, a mea-
sure by which the annual success of striped bass spawning
is judged.

In support of this panel discussion, G. Thayer gave an
overview of the environmental problems of the southeastern
United States, with particular emphasis on habitat restora-
tion. Coastal revegetation has led to some increases in
animal life, but has failed to replace the functional value of
natural habitat. In many cases, created habitats may reveg-
etate, but traditional species are often replaced by opportu-
nistic species with less ecological and economic value.
Recognizing this, Thayer questioned the effectiveness of
mitigation, the theory that creation of new habitats may offer
greater potential than restoration, and the glaring absence of
standards and criteria for evaluating mitigation success.

In conclusion, it was recognized that quantifying the
functional value of habitats and the associated resource
value needed to be planned into future research efforts.

PANEL NO. 3: HABITAT LOSS,
MITIGATION, AND RESTORATION

T. Bigford, G. Thayer, M. Monaco, M. DelVicario of
the EPA’s Region II, and S. Chanesman of the NMFS’s
Office of Habitat and Protected Resources discussed vari-
ous aspects of habitat loss, mitigation, and restoration. In
introducing the panel, Bigford noted the “no net loss”
concept and that federal agencies were increasing efforts to
convert a worthwhile goal into a workable policy. To
document losses, agencies now quantify habitat loss through
mapping, tracking permit decisions, and calculating trend

analyses. This is manifested in activities under NOAA’s
Coastal Ocean Program and its Status and Trends Program,
the EPA’s EMAP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
updating of the National Wetland Inventory maps, and the
permit/project tracking activities of federal and state agen-
cies.

While habitat loss is being assessed, mitigation activi-
ties are also being judged. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and NMFS cooperative agreement confirms a commitment
to effective restoration and creation of fish habitat. This
couples with the Corps of Engineers 22-million-dollar na-
tional program to mitigate effects from civil works projects.
The continued future of these efforts resides in quantifying
the effectiveness of mitigation actions.

Restoration will be NOAA’s focus in habitat work in
the near future. With Superfund settlements occurring, and
the likelihood of a settlement on major oil spills, site-specific
restoration will constitute a major portion of NOAA’s
habitat activities. Specifically, the NOAA Damage Assess-
ment and Restoration Program's Regional Restoration Cen-
ters promise to colocate the expertise needed to conduct an
effective program. But for this to succeed, quantitative
information will be needed on losses of habitat functional
value, on damage assessment, and on fish habitat recovery
Tates.

M. Monaco presented the capabilities of the National
Ocean Service's Strategic Assessments Branch for support
of habitat assessment, mitigation, and restoration activities.
Focusing on five areas (i.e., human activities, pollution
sources, physical environment, biogeographic characteriza-
tion, and decision support), the Strategic Assessments Branch
is providing data and information bases in a computerized
format to decision makers. These include “Geo-Coast” for
producing maps, “CMAS” for biogeographical analysis of
living marine resources, and “COMPAS” for browsing
through water- and land-use activities, physical and hydro-
logical characteristics, and background sociopolitical infor-
mation against which resource assessments can be com-
pared. Monacostressed that a great deal of information was
available for making informed decisions on habitat value,
use, and loss, but also recognized that closer coordination
among agencies could strengthen the data bases and enhance
applications.

In regard to assessing habitat loss, mitigation, and
restoration, M. Del Vicario discussed EPA's recent empha-
sis on wetland mitigation and restoration and the difficulties
in being successful through a site-by-site approach. Inmany
cases, a mitigation project fails simply because the sur-
rounding degraded environment degrades the mitigation
project. Closer scrutiny of the potential success of a mitiga-
tion project is planned, prior to approval. In addressing
future mitigation projects, EPA plans to develop compre-
hensive plans for Long Island Sound, Hudson River -
Raritan Bay Estuary, and Delaware Bay that will lead to
successful mitigation efforts. NMFS cooperation and scien-
tific expertise are key in this EPA effort, recognizing NMFS
focus on restoring the functional values of fishery habitats


Page 93

“Apuesiyiubis aseasoul
HIM sauoz ,,paiaye Ajybiy,, pue ,payouua,
ey} UI saldeds o14y,Uaq Jo suaquinu ayy ‘OH

" ApueoyiuBis aseasour jim
Seuoz ,pareye Ajybiy, pue ,payouue, ayy ul
suisiuebio abei0} ueaceysnio $O Joquinu ay] ‘G#

‘sjiods aBpaup jo sanyeso| pa}ejosi

Ul yOU Inq Ulseg a4} JnoYyBnolY} -- W LG 3e

1/5w Z pue ‘woj0q aaoge wi | 3e 7/6w p sanjen
WINUWIUIL -- panaijad aq |IIM (7/70 Bw 9v°0

0} Mou) elxodAy jeluuasad jo Ayisueazul ay) “LL #

(sasayjyodAy)
SAONVHO G3ALVdIOILLNVY


Page 38
53144

Federal Register / Vol. 48.
_ —

No. 228 / Friday. November 25. 1983 / Notices

active role of fishery management in the
Fishery Conservation Zone (which is the
responsibility of the Regional Councils)
and within the ternitorial seas (which is
under States’ jurisdictions). Overall
conclusiom is that the policy, as written,
suggests the intention of assigning to
NMFS a role in fishery management
which heretofore has ben filled by the
Councils and concerned coastal States.

Response: The policy recognizes @
partnership between NMFS and the
Councils under the Magnuson Act and
does not create any greater role for
NMFS or the Councils than that which is
currently required under the Act. The
policy is not intended to usurp the
Council's responsibilities. It provides the
bsis for considering habitat during the
Councils’ development of Fishery
Management Plans. Moreover, the policy
does not provide for NMFS' intervention
in State management of State resources
in State waters. It indicates that NMFS
and the Councils have an interest in
conservation of the habitats of species
managed under the Magnuson Act.

Comment. The policy should provide
for recognition of States’ roles in habitat
conservation and for more definitive
mechanisms for working with States in
this regard. Several opportunities exist:
(a) Under Impiementation Strategy No.
1. Regional Directors should include
State programs in their inventory of
strategies to address habitat issues.
There should be formal consultation
with, and opportunity for comment by.
States prior to adoption of regional
habitat protection plans: (b) existing
grant programs should recognize the
validity of habitat conservation matters:
and (c} procedures for NMFS*
coordination with the Slates regarding
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
reviews should be adopted.

Response: implementation of the
policy will be in full recognition of
States’ roles in habitat conservation.
The policy in n0 way evistons a
reduction of State activities. It ia
expected that States will be consulted
during planning and implementation. It
is expected that NMFS’ grant programs.
as well as other programs, will consider
habitat as part of the integration
process.

Interactions With Other Agencies

Comment: One State commented that
the Corps of Engineers has been
traditionally recognized as the Federal
agnecy for coastal habitat protection.
The Corps’ working relationship with
coastal States 1s a long proven process.
Implementation of the policy will add
another layer of Federal involvement to
what is already in place.

Response: The policy does not provide
for replacement of the Corps of
Engineers or any other agencies having
interests in habitat conservation. NMFS,
under the.Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. will continue to
provide recommendatons to the Corps
regarding its issuance of permits far
construction which could have an
impact on living marine resources. The
Corps will continue to make final
decisions on issuance of permits.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that NMFS should coordinate its habitat
conservation programs not just with
other elements of NOAA. but also with
other key Federal and State agencies
which have interests in or
responsibilities for habitat conservation
Response: in this regard, NMFS has
every expectation of building in other
Federal and State agencies.
Implementation Strategy No. 6
specifically addresses this concern.
Comment: Suggest development of
interagency memorandum between
NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife
Service. perhaps with Army involved
also, to remove duplication of effort
when commenting on Corps of Engineers
water resource projects and permit
applications. .
Response: If needed, such a
memorandum could be one of many
provided for in [mplementation Strategy
No. 6

Benefit of Proposed Policy to Other
Wildlife

Comment: Recommend inserung at
appropriate place, language that states
that migratory birds will benefit from
policy.

Response: NMFS agrees. Language
has been added to reflect that
implementation of the poticy will be
beneficial to other wildlife resources.
including migratory birds.

Impact of Energy Development

Comment: Quoting a statement in the
Background section that coastal habitats
“have been substantially reduced and
continue to suffer the adverse effects of

. . energy development. . .." one
commenter suggested that unless NMFS
could fully document the statement. it
should be deleted.

Response: The impacts of energy
development an living marine resource
habitats were listed along with impacts
of other human-related activities such as
dredging, filling, coastal construction,
pollution and waste disposal. In the case
of wetlands, actual loss figures were
quoted fram The Coastal Almanac for
1980—The Year of the Coast (Ringold
and Clark, 1980).

Predator-Prey and Ecosystem
Relationships

Comment: Recommend adding
language that specifically addresses the
predator-prey relationship.

Response: The proposed policy
implicitly recognized the importance of
prey species wiuch support species of
importance to man. However, for clarity,
the policy has been revised to
specifically recognize the importance of
the predator-prey relationship by using
the language recommended by several
of the commenters.

Comment Several commenters stated
that marine life is part of an aquatic
ecosystem where food and nutrient
sources are so interwoven as to make
precise determination of relationships
between managed and non-managed
species extremely difficult. Proposed
policy seems not to provide explicit
credence to value of ecosystems in
maintaining diversity of species.

Response: The importance of
ecosystem planning and research is
clearly recognized and dealt with in
Implementation Strategies Nos. 1 and 2.
This matter is also addressed in the
amendment to the policy with respect to
the predator-prey relationship.

Funding, Resources

Coniment: Several commenters stated
that for effective implementation of the
policy, an adequate funding base for
habitat research and conservation
activities must be maintained.
Moreover. while delegation of authority
to States may be appropnate. lack of
money may prevent it from working
properly.

Response: Implementation of the
policy is not premised upen an increase
in funding, but better utilizauon of funds
available, Recognizing that State and
local governments also face budget
constraints, NMFS expects they wil set
priorities regarding utilization of
resources. The Federal Government will
help to the extent it can, such as acting
as a catalyst.

Comment: The policy would demand a
redirection of NMFS’ effort. With no
mention of funding for increase in
habitat conservation effort, development
programs and interests must necessarily
diminish as environmental protection
programs and emphasis expand.

Response: Although the policy is not
intended to significantly diminish
specific programs, NMFS cannot
forecast the effect on such programs
with adoption of the policy. NMFS wiil
deal with the direction of habitat
conservation and other activities during
its strategic planning efforts.


Page 125

FY91 ACTIVITIES

Continued sampling in Virginian Province

Detailed analysis of Virginian Province
data

Demonstration project in Gulf of Mexico

Evaluate developing joint activities with a
state/local program

-- Chesapeake Bay Program (integration
effort)

-- Delaware Inland Bays (index
development)

Work with NOAA on developing/
obtaining indicator data

-- Stressor/climate data
-- Characterization data

Joint Assessment Report with NOAA




Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 228 / Friday, November 25. 1983 / Notices
—— ee

Page 41
53147

siting, water quality degradation, and
removal or degradation of tidal and
intertidal wetlands.

5. NMFS will work closely with the
States. the Interstate Marine Fisheries
Commissions, and the Regional Fishery
Management Councils to ensure that
State/Federal Fishery Management
Plans and the Councils’ Fishery
Management Plans are fully coordinated
with regard to living marine resource
habitat conservation. This coordination
can be served through the Coastal Zone
Management. or State/Federal Action
plan process which could also provide
mechanisms for sharing responsibilities
and costs.

6. Since other Federal, State and local
agencies are involved in living marine
resource habitat matters, NMFS will
support existing or new interagency
operating arrangements to help define
and assign appropriate roles and
responsibilities. These arrangements
may be informal or formal.

7. NMFS will focus its freshwater
habitat activities on anadromous
species. This does not preclude NMFS”
involvement in a freshwater project if
the project could adversely affect living
marine resources for which NMFS has
primary management responsibility or
which are the subject of a NMFS
program.

8. Where possible. NMFS will become
more actively involved with
governmental agencies and private
developers during preapplication or
early planning stages. This involvement
will allow NMFS to better anticipate
problems. identify alternatives for
achieving objectives, reduce possibility
of conflict, and minimize adverse effects
on living marine resources and their
habitats. In the case of essential public
interest projects where practical
alternatives are unavailable. NMFS will
recommend measures to mitigate habitat
losses. Also. when appropriate. NMFS.
will recommend habitat enhancement
measures including rehabilitation.

9. As habitat considerations are
integrated across all program lines. each
major program office of NMFS will
review its authorizing legislation and
implementing regulations in conjunction
with the Office of General Counsel to
determine if these adequately provide
for consideration of habitat. Legislative
or regulatory changes will be
recommended as needed.

10. Recognizing NOAA's broad
responsibilities for ocean management,
NMFS will continue to cooperate with
other NOAA program elements in
environmental activities conducted by
these elements and will emphasize those
activities affecting living marine
resources for which NMFS has primary
responsibility. NMFS will also seek

assistance from other NOAA elements
with expertise in areas relating to living
marine resources and their habitats.

11. During the implementation af the
Federal regulatory reform processes,
NMFS. particularly its Central Office,
will actively review and participate in
the development of evolving Federal and
State laws. regulations. policies and
actions (e.g.. Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act} that affect habitats of
species for which NMFS has primary
management responsibility or which are
the subject of a NMFS program to
ensure that habitat conservation is
appropriately considered.

12. To generate greater interest in
perpetuating healthy living marine
resource habitats. NMFS will emphasize
greater communication of its habitat
conservation activities to its
constituency. This includes commercial
and marine recreational fishing
interests. academia. environmental
groups. coastal residents, marine-
criented industries. the general public.
and the Congress.

Dated: November 21. 1943.
William G. Gordon,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.
National Marine Fisheries Service.

IPR Dor. AO-1081 Filed 11-21-83 €27 pm}
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M