[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


     H--A- I           PROTECTION ACTIVITY
                                                                     Adk
     1991-4993

     U.S. Department of Commerce
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratioq4"""






                                                      44
























                                               AA




                                                                              AITMOSI
           B TAT                                                     RJP@!,RT
























  GC1018
                                                                              ENT
    H33
  1991-93










                                      S14T OF C0                 Habitat Protection
                                                                 Activity Re ort:

                                      NrEs o
                                                                 1991 = 1993



                                                                 Office of Habitat Protection
                                                                 Silver Spring, Maryland
                                                                 August, 1994



















                                                                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                                                 Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

                                                                 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                                                 D. James Baker, Under Secretary

                                                                 National Marine Fisheries Service
                                                                 Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator


                                                                LIBRARY
                                                              NOAVCCEH
          V@                                             1990 HOBSON AVE.
                                                       CHAS. SC 29408-2623





















































                                    Cover Photograph: Tidal creek and salt marsh in Wild Harbor River, Cape Cod,
                                    Massachusetts. This highly productive habitat supports numerous marine and
                                    estuarine species. Local recreational fisheries include blue crab, bluefish, eel,
                                    soft-shelled clam and quahog. Massachusetts lost 28% of its wetlands between
                                    1780 and 1980. Photo courtesy of Susan M. Stedman.














                                                    FOREWORD


            It is a particular pleasure to introduce the first activity report of the Office of Habitat Protection.
            Although habitatprotection activities have been carried outby National Marine Fisheries Service
            (NMFS) personnel for many years, concern for the increasing loss and degradation of habitat
            critical to fisheries resources has called for increased effort. This concern prompted the
            organizational elevation of habitat protection efforts to Office level. In October, 1992, the Office
            of Habitat Protection was created.


            This report will introduce the reader to habitat protection and conservation activities currently
            being carried out around the nation by NMFS field staff. Although the report does not include all
            field activities, the examples selected are representative of the many imp   ortant types of projects
            underway. These covera wide range of activities including the authorization of dam construction
            and operation, assessing of environmental damage from oil spills, protecting coastal wetlands,
            restoring access of fishery resource populations to ecosystems critical to their life cycles,
            designating disposal sites for dredge materials and restoring damaged ecosystems.

            The staff of the Office of Habitat Protection, regionalhabitatpersonnel, and we inviteyou to read
            the report andbecome betteracquainted with this important NMFS program. We believe that this
            report will give you a fresh appreciation for the importance of habitat preservation and our role
            in the protection and conservation of fishery habitats.

            Any questions you mayhave about these activities orsuggestions foradditional activities willbe
            welcomed.


                              , YK -, @
           fNancy 7Fteir, Ph.D.                                        RollandA. Schmit n
            Depu       ssistant Administrator                          Assistant Administrator
            National Marine Fisheries Service                          National Marine Fisheries Service





                Table of Contents

                FOREWORD               ........................................................................................................................... 3

                1. INTRODUCTION                      ..............................................................................................................7


                11. THE PROBLEM                   ................................................................................................................ 8
                      A.     The Magnitude of the Problem                       .................................................................................. 8
                             THE DECLINE OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES                                              ................................................. 8
                             IMPACT ON ECONOMY                         ............................................................................................8
                             IMPACT ON HEALTH                     .................................................................................................8
                             IMPACT ON WAY OF LIFE                         ....................................................................................... 9
                      B.     Causes        ....................................................................................................................... 9
                             OVERFISHING               ........................................................................................................... 9
                             PHYSICAL HABITAT LOSS                          ...................................................................................... 9
                             HABITAT QUALITY LOSS                        ......................................................................................... 9


                Ill. SOLUTIONS - HABITAT PROTECTION                                      .......................................................................   12
                      A. Habitat's Importance To Living Marine Resources                                      ..................................................   12
                             NMFS RESPONSIBILITIES                          ....................................................................................   13
                                General Responsibilities                  ......................................................................................   13
                                 Legal Authorities           ...................................................................................................   14
                      B. NMFS Habitat Protection Program                              ..........................................................................   15
                             OFFICE OF HABITAT PROTECTION PROGRAM                                             ..................................................   16


                IV. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS                                      ...............................................................................   17
                      A.     Headquarters Accomplishments                          .............................................................................   17
                             ELEVATION TO WASHINGTON, D.C.: POINTAU FER PERMIT                                                      . .........................    17
                             ELEVATION TO WASHINGTON, D.C.: PETROSTAR, INC. PERMIT                                                          ....................   18
                             WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL                                   ......................................................................   18
                             WHITE HOUSE WETLANDS TASK FORCE                                          ..........................................................   19
                             DOA/NOAA COOPERATIVE PROGRAM                                        ...............................................................   19
                             AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSON ACT                                          ...........................................................   20
                             FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INTERACTIONS                                                     ...................................   20
                             WATER QUALITY 2000 (WQ2000)                               .........................................................................   20
                             INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT                                                            .......................   21
                             COASTAILAMERICA                    ................................................................................................   21
                             NATIONAL OCEAN POLLUTION PROGRAM                                           ........................................................   21
                             HABITAT CONSERVATION BROCHURE                                       ...............................................................   22
                             CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMITS                                               ...............................................   22
                             HABITAT VIDEO TAPE TEACHING UNIT DEVELOPED                                                .........................: ..............   22
                             NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES                                           .....................................................   23
                             CHESAPEAKE BAY OFFICE CREATED                                      ................................................................   23
                             CLEAN WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION                                        ............................................................   23










                TABLE OF CONTENTS



                       B. Northeast Region           ..................................................................................................... 23
                            Region Wide        ............................................................................................................ 24
                              DELAWARE           .......................................................................................................... 26
                              MAINE      ................................................................................................................... 27
                              MARYLAND           .......................................................................................................... 28
                              MARYLANDNIRGINIA                 ......................................................................................... 30
                              MASSACHUSETTS                .............................................................................................. 30
                              NEW HAMPSHIRE              ................................................................................................ 31
                              NEW YORK          ........................................................................................................... 31
                              NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY                    .................................................................................. 34
                       C. Southeast Region            ..................................................................................................... 35
                            Region Wide        ............................................................................................................. 35
                              FLORIDA        ............................................................................................................... 36
                              LOUISIANA          ........................................................................................................... 38
                              NORTH CAROLINA               .............................................................................................. 40
                              SOUTH CAROLINA/GEORGIA                      ............................................................................ 41
                              TEXAS       ................................................................................................................... 42
                              TEXAS/LOUISIANA              .............................................................................................. 43
                              VIRGINIA/ NORTH CAROLINA                     ........................................................................... 44
                       D. Southwest Region            ..................................................................................................... 44
                            Region Wide        ............................................................................................................. 45
                              CALIFORNIA          ......................................................................................................... 45
                              HAWAII       .................................................................................................................. 52
                              MICRONESIA           ........................................................................................................ 53
                              REPUBLIC of PALAU              ............................................................................................ 53
                       E. Northwest Region            ..................................................................................................... 54
                           Region Wide        .............................................................................................................. 54
                              IDAHO       ................................................................................................................... 54
                              OREGON          .............................................................................................................. 55
                              WASHINGTON             ...................................................................................................... 55
                       F. Alaska Region          ........................................................................................................... 58

                 V.    FUTURE DIRECTIONS                .................................................................................................. 65
                       A. Programmatic Alignment              ........................................................................................... 65
                       B. New National Direction             ............................................................................................. 66
                       C. Habitat Protection Legislative Initiatives               .................................................................. 66
                       D. Habitat Protection Budget Initiatives               ........................................................................ 67
                       E. New National Tracking System                 ................................................................................ 69

                 Regional Habitat Offices          ........................................................................................................ 70
                 List of Acronyms        .................................................................................................................... 71
                 Glossary     ................................................................................................................................ 73


                                                                                                                                               5





                       Introduction



                                         The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an agency of the National
                                         Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of
                                         Commerce (DOC), is responsible for the conservation of living marine resources,
                                         the protection of marine mammals and endangered marine species and the
                                         habitats on which they depend. The purpose of NMFS' Habitat Protection
                                         Program is to conserve and protect the valuable habitats necessary to sustain
                                         marine biological communities. This is accomplished primarily through
                                         review of licensing, permitting, legislative, and administrative activities that
                                         affect living marine resources and habitats; coordinating with Regional Fishery
                                         Management Councils on Fishery Management Plans (FMPs); and conducting
                                         habitat-related research. As trustees of the habitats of living marine resources,
                                         the Program offers supervision and guidance for activities in land-use and
                                         wetland planning so that proper attention is given to their welfare.

                                         This report describes important marine habitat issues, and gives examples of
                                         the accomplishments and activities of the Agency's Habitat Protection Program
                                         for 1991, 1992 and 1993. This report is available from the Office of Habitat
                                         Protection, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1335 East-West Highway,
                                         Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910.

























                                                                                                                          7





                            The Problem

                                               A. The Magnitude of the Problem

                                                            THE DECLINE OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES


                                               Coastal habitat and wetland loss have significantly affected declines in the U.S. fishery stocks.
                                               In 1992, the U.S. commercial fishing industry caught over 9.6 billion pounds of seafood valued
                                               at $3.7 billion. However, estuarine dependent fishery landings are down, and the shellfishing
                                               industry is operating at historic low levels. Since 1982, commercial landings of fish and
                                               shellfish in the Southeast Atlantic states and the Gulf of Mexico have decreased 42%. Oyster
                                               landings at 90% below historic levels in the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound are
                                               attributable to habitat loss and degradation in those estuaries. Colombia River Basin salmon
                                               and steelhead runs have declined 75-84% from historic levels, due largely to impedance by
                                               dams of sea-bound smolts and returning adults. California's natural salmon runs have been
                                               reduced by 65% in only 20 years.

                                                                               IMPACT ON ECONOMY


                                               Tbelosses of these fisheries resources mean fewerjobs forthefishers, processors, and vendors.
                                               Commercial fishing in 1988 employed over 274,000 fishers and 90,000 shore workers. The
                                               income of fishing gear manufacturers and fisheries product transporters are also reduced. In
                                               1989, over $17 billion was spent on fishing-related products and services such as boats, motors,
                                               equipment, fuel, insurance, and docking fees. The absence of these revenues and their
                                               multiplier effects on the U.S. economy is significant. In addition, the loss of the natural fisheries
                                               resources results in the reduction of the domestic food supply. This reduction will result in
                                               higher prices to the consumer or increased imports to meet demand or both.

                                                  Recreational marine fisheries in 1985 contributed over $4.9 billion to coastal economies in
                                               trip expenditures alone. In 1990, 65,000 tons of fish were caught recreationally in the Atlantic
                                               and Gulf of Mexico; 13,000 tons were taken from the Pacific in 1989. More than 13,709,000
                                               people participated in the sport. Aggregate expenditures for saltwater finfishing in 1985 were
                                               estimated at greater than $7.2 billion. Losses in recreational fisheries stocks affect charter boat
                                               operators, bait shops, boat rentals, boat manufacturers, fishing gear manufacturers, and the
                                               motel and hotel industry.

                                                                                 IMPACT ON HEALTH


                                               The impacts of habitat degradation stretch beyond economics to human health and even the way
                                               of life for a significant portion of the Nation's population. Bivalve molluscs are relatively
                                               immobile filter feeders unable to move from polluted waters which they pump through their
                                               systems in large quantities. Enteric diseases, Vibrio bacteria, and marine biotoxins can be
                                               carried by shellfish to human consumers. Shellfishing restriction is an indicator of coastal water
                                               quality conditions relative to pollution from human activity. In 1974, about one-fourth of the
                                               shellfish beds in the United States were closed to harvesting due to sewage contamination in
                                               the beds. Shellfish contamination, environmental impacts from mosquito control, and beach
                                               closures all are associated with the health of the marine resources. Unhealthy waters pose a
                                               threat to bathers; recent attention has focused on medical wastes and raw sewage which have
                                               closed popular beaches. Tracking the extent and duration of beach closings is an indicator of
                                               how the nation monitors coastal water quality and the severity of coastal water pollution.



              8










                THE PROBLEM




                                                                                IMPACT ON WAY OF LIFE


                                                   Fishing as a livelihood and a sport represents one of the most important uses of this resource.
                                                   The commercial industry employs over 345,000 people, many of which come from generations
                                                   of fishermen and women. Commercial fishers increased in number almost 15% from 1985 to
                                                   1988. This workforce has a significant stake in the future of fisheries resources. As marine
                                                   resources decline, a significant portion of the population may find its historical livelihood at
                                                   risk.


                                                      Recreational marine fisheries are also affected. For example, 70% of recreationally
                                                   important fishery resources in the Southeast utilize estuaries and nearshore marine habitats at
                                                   some point in their lifecycle. Loss of habitat reduces stocks and has negative effects on the
                                                   opportunities available to recreational fishers.



                                                   B. Causes


                                                                                         OVERFISHING


                                                   Fishing effort remains greater than many commercial and recreational species can withstand.
                                                   While total U.S. fish landings continue to grow, a substantial portion of the stocks are over-
                                                   utilized, due in part to overcapitalization and technological improvements. By weight,
                                                   estuarine-dependent fish make up 77% of the Nation's commercial harvest, and these species
                                                   are the most vulnerable to habitat and water quality impacts. Many species, such as salmon,
                                                   striped bass, and mackerel, have declined in abundance. Shellfish also show a steady decline
                                                   in abundance as well, though they vary by region and species. Protection of fishery habitats
                                                   is critical to ensure propagation for future stocks.

                                                                                PHYSICAL HABITAT LOSS


                                                   Decades of widespread habitat destruction is evident throughout the country. Habitats critical
                                                   to the life cycles of fishery resources are being lost due to both human and natural factors.
                                                   Estimates indicate that coastal wetlands are being lost at the rate of 20,000 acres per year. About
                                                   half of the original 11.7 million acres of coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states were lost during
                                                   the period of 1780 to 1978. From 1953 to 1977, over 372,000 acres of estuarine wetlands
                                                   disappeared. Of these, 55% were lost to coastal erosion and 45% to urban development.
                                                   Regionally, certain areas have exceptional problems. Texas has estimated that over one-third
                                                   of its approximately one million acres of coastal marshes may have been lost between the mid-
                                                   1950's and the mid-1970's. In areas like Louisiana's marshes, land loss rates approaching 60
                                                   square miles per year have been observed, due primarily to a gradual rise in sea level, extensive
                                                   canal dredging, and upland flood control levees on the Mississippi River which prevent the
                                                   normal flow of sediments to the coastal marshes. Other aquatic systems show similar trends
                                                   in wetland losses.


                                                                                 HABITAT OUALITY LOSS


                                                      Discharges from wastewater plants and industries or oil and other hazardous chemical spills
                                                   contribute to the degradation of critical habitat. Many bays and coastal waters have been
                                                   contaminated with heavy metals, petroleum compounds, and other chemical wastes. Upland


                                                                                                                                                     9










                  THE PROBLEM




                                                                         li-TES WITH SIGNIFICANT NET LOS
                                                                                                         IN WETLANDS


                   Figure 1. States with
                   Significant Net Losses in
                   Wetlands.
















                                                                                                                                              U









                                                                      Changes in Estuarine Vegetated Wetland Acreages

                                                                                              Acreages Lost or Gained
                                                                                                  by State: 1974-1983                                                                     0

                                                                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                                                                      -162

                                                                                                                                                                                       -24



                                                                                                                                                                                  -104


                                                                                                                                                                                      -149

                                                                                                                                                                                -255
                       Figure 2. Changes in                                                                                                                                     -10
                       Estuarine Vegetated
                       Wetland Acreages by
                       State.



                                                                                                                                                                   -1.132


                                                                                                                             K.                                      -341


                                                                                                                                                                        -843
                                                                                                                                          ;7

                                                                                                                                            +46

                                                                                                                       -57,097    -13
                                                                                                              -9,466


                                                                                                                                                                        Rom Tmer, R.W. 1991



                 10










                 THE PROBLEM




                                                   activities such as logging, mining, agricultural conversion and runoff, and hydroelectric power
                                                   development have also seriously affected the quality and quantity of habitat for living marine
                                                   resources.


                                                      The presence of pollutants and the effects of pollution in U.S. waters are of great national
                                                   concern. There has been strong public response to widely publicized incidents of medical
                                                   waste along beaches, dolphin deaths, and beach closings in the past 5 years. Only 56% of U.S.-
                                                   assessed estuarine waters fully support their designated uses such as swimming and fishing;
                                                   the Great Lakes waters fare far worse. Specific water bodies suffer from specialized problems
                                                   such as fish kills and shellfish bed closings tied to particular pollution sources (agriculture,
                                                   toxic chemicals, thermal plumes, etc.).

                                                      Coastal and estuarine habitats are important to maintaining healthy fish stocks. Tidal
                                                   marshes, from salt to freshwater, provide valuable nursery and foraging habitats for a variety
                                                   of marine life. The plants found in tidal marshes provide nutrients to the surrounding
                                                   ecosystem. Recent studies have shown a direct connection between the amount of marsh
                                                   vegetation and shrimp abundance in the Gulf of Mexico. Other studies show greater use of
                                                   marsh areas by subadult shrimp and fish than the open water environment. Without such areas,
                                                   commercially important species such as shrimp, oysters, fish, and crab would not be available.
                                                   This also holds for recreationally important fish including red drum, red snapper, grouper,
                                                   seatrout, mackerel, salmon, and others.

















                                                    OF
                                                    e'@


                                                                           -ARh
                    Figure 3. Pollution from
                    sewage outfall pipe.





             111. Solutions -Habitat Protection



                                          A. Habitat's Importance To Living Marine Resources



                                          Estuaries and wetlands are important to many species of finfish and shellfish because these
                                          habitats provide areas for spawning, nurseries, protection from predators, and food supplies.
                                          These areas are where the complex food web begins (see Figure 5). More than two-thirds of the
                                          commercially-important fish species on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts depend on
                                          wetlands as critical habitat at some time during their life. In addition, these habitats serve as
                                          efficient filters for contaminants from upland discharges and urban runoff. Wetlands help to
                                          maintain water quality and in many estuaries, retard erosion, retain flood waters, and afford many
                                          recreational opportunities. Such areas are especially important because they are so productive and
                                          so close to shore. About one-half of all U.S.- caught fish are caught in coastal waters within 3
                                          miles of shore.

                                             Rivers are also important for salmon and other anadromous fish that migrate from the ocean
                                          to spawn in the rivers where they were hatched. Thus, habitats used for migration require
                                          protection from disruption by construction, damming, or logging activities which may restrict this
                                          crucial transit to spawning areas. In addition, riverborne discharges from numerous upland
                                          sources have adversely affected the quality of many remaining coastal and estuarine habitats.


                                                              PENAEID SHRIMP LIFE CYCLE



                                                                                                              PROTOZOEA


                                                           POS LARVA


                                                                                         MYSIS
                Figure 4. Diagram of
                the life cycle of the
                Penaeid shrimp.                         JLIVENILE                                                  NAUPLIUS




                                                                 POSTLARVA
                                                                                                   ADULT                EGGS
                                                                        -2!7
                                                                                                                  0


                                                                                                           OCEAN
                                             4;@








              12










                 SOLUTIONS -
                 HABITAT
                 PROTECTION
                                                      @
                                                           PRIMARY           PRIMARY          SECONDARY           TERTIARY
                                                         PRODUCERS         CONSUMERS          CONSUMERS         CONSUMERS             MAN














                     Figure 5. Animals and
                     plants of the ocean are
                     connected by the network
                     called a food web. Animals
                     from shrimp to humans                                               DECOMPOSER COMMUNITY
                     depend on the energy
                     passed from the sun
                     through this food web.


                                                                                NMFS RESPONSIBILITIES

                                                                                            GENERAL


                                                   Despite the destruction of coastal wetlands, and considerable advances in our understanding
                                                   of their enormous importance, they still remain at risk. NMFS is responsible for protecting
                                                   living marine resources and their habitats from the inland reach of anadromous fish to the outer
                                                   limits of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.



                                                                                   200 Mile Limit





                       Figure 6. Diagram of
                       Exclusive Economic
                       Zone (EEZ) which
                       extends 200 nautical
                       miles from shore.





                                                                                                                                 F
                                                         P,
                                                                             @4,












                                                                       Q)

                                                                                                                                                  13










            SOLUTIONS -
            HABITAT
            PROTECTION

                                                                             LEGAL AUTHORITIES

                                           NMFS carries out its charge under many laws and mandates from Congress. These statutes and
                                           implementing regulations require that licenses, permits, and construction projects regulated or
                                           undertaken by otherFederal agencies in waters of the United States must include consultation with
                                           Federal resource agencies (e.g. NMFS). Most of NMFS' responsibilities emanate from the
                                           following statutes:

                                                ï¿½   Clean Water Act, which has the goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical,
                                                    and biological integrity of the nation's waters (lakes, wetlands, streams, and other
                                                    aquatic habitats);

                                                ï¿½   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
                                                    which gives NOAA authority, as a natural resources trustee, to assess injury, destruction,
                                                    or loss of natural resources in the marine environment caused by releases of hazardous
                                                    substances;

                                                ï¿½   Endangered Species Act, which protects species determined to be threatened or
                                                    endangered;

                                                ï¿½   Federal Power Act provides, among otherthings, NMFS authority to prescribe fishways;

                                                ï¿½   Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, which authorizes NMFS to collect fisheries data and
                                                    to advise other governmental agencies on environmental decisions that affect living
                                                    marine resources;


                                                ï¿½   Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which regulates
                                                    fisheries within the (EEZ);

                                                ï¿½   Marine Mammal Protection Act, which regulates taking or importing marine mammals;

                                                ï¿½   Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuari@s Act of 1972 (MPRSA), under Title II,
                                                    gives NOAA broad research authority on the effects of pollution on the marine
                                                    environment, including coastal and marine habitats.

                                                ï¿½   National Environmental Policy Act, which requires disclosure of environmental
                                                    consequences associated with Federal or Federally- authorized rules or projects with the
                                                    potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the alternatives
                                                    to these actions;

                                                ï¿½   Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which combines various oil spill response mechanisms, and
                                                    addresses all oil discharges to navigable waters and shorelines. It raises liability limits
                                                    for vessels, expands cleanup and economic damage collections, provides for emergency
                                                    response planning, and creates a $1 billion Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund;

                                                ï¿½   Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which controls the placement of structures in navigable
                                                    waterways so that commerce and marine, anadromous, and estuarine resources are not
                                                    adversely impacted;






            14










                  SOLUTIONS -
                  HABITAT
                  PROTECTION













                                                                                                                        4
                      Figure 7. The Capitol,
                      where congressional
                      committees develop
                      habitat legislation.
                                                                                                     LIU






                                                   B. NMFS Habitat Protection Program

                                                   NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Habitat Protection Program activities are
                                                   carried out nationwide as part of the overall NMFS fisheries research and management
                                                   program. Facilities involved in these activities include NMFS regional office Science Centers
                                                   and Laboratories (responsible for fisheries research), Regional Headquarters (which manage
                                                   the Regional field activities), and field stations (responsible for on-site inspections and
                                                   analysis of proposed actions). The NMFS Office of Habitat Protection central office in Silver
                                                   Spring, MD provides policy guidance for the NMFS Regional and Center programs. Habitat
                                                   programs are organized and administered in each area to respond effectively to unique regional
                                                   issues.


                                                       All regional habitat conservation programs are a reflection of three important considerations:
                                                   the pressures on the living marine resource habitats in the region, the size of the area managed,
                                                   and the commercial and recreational importance of the species. The NMFS Habitat Protection
                                                   Program is directed by several Federal laws and its National Habitat Conservation Policy,
                                                   which was published in 1983. Implementation of this policy is facilitated by 12 strategies
                                                   targeting: coordinating research and management; habitat research; interacting with the eight
                                                   Regional Fishery Management Councils and specific Fishery ManagementPlans; strengthening
                                                   NMFS involvement under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; assisting states with marine
                                                   habitat issues; initiating and strengthening interagency agreements; protecting anadromous
                                                   fish; increasing preapplication planning; integrating habitat consideration across NMFS
                                                   programs; increasing intra-NOAA cooperation; providing necessary and appropriate regulatory
                                                   relief, and communicating of habitat information to NMFS constituents.




                                                                                                                                                   15










              SOLUTIONS -
              HABITAT
              PROTECTION

                                                           OFFICE OF HABITAT PROTECTION PROGRAM


                                          Asa result of an intensive study of the Habitat Protection Program between 1990 and 1991, several
                                          recommendations were submitted to the Assistant Administrator. The overwhelming theme of
                                          these recommendations was the need for reorganization within NMFS, and the effective
                                          placement of the habitat protection function within that structure. Consequently, in October 1992,
                                          the Office of Habitat Protection (OHP) was formally created as a separate office on a par with the
                                          other NMFS Offices.


                                              The Headquarters Office in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., is
                                          responsible for policy development and technical guidance. Staff at Headquarters provide day-
                                          to-day guidance to NMFS regions and fishery science centers on implementing the NMFS Habitat
                                          Conservation Policy including any necessary revisions, updating, and interpretation. The
                                          Office's primary objective is to favorably influence the decisions of other Federal agencies to
                                          protect and manage habitats of importance to NMFS' trust resources. Office staff provide key
                                          support to the Assistant Administrator, the Director of the Office of Habitat Protection, and
                                          NOAA and DOC on living marine resource habitat and environmental matters; draft new policy,
                                          agreements, and Federal legislation; and evaluate the same. The Office provides Headquarters
                                          leadership for the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) referrals, Clean Water
                                          Act (CWA) Section 404(q) Memorandum ofAgreement elevations, and national office interaction
                                          with other Federal Departments and Agencies where living marine resource habitat policy issues
                                          are involved.


                                             The Office is a source of funding for NMFS habitat conservation research activities. Of special
                                          interest is research and information sharing activities undertaken by NOAA's National Ocean
                                          Service's (NOS); Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM); Office for
                                          Atmospheric Research (OAR); Coastal Ocean Program (COP); Sanctuaries and Reserves
                                          Division for research funding of marine sanctuary and estuarine research efforts; Office of Ocean
                                          Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA); Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment
                                          Division; and Strategic Environmental Assessment Division (SEAD) for mapping, benthic
                                          surveillance, and other synoptic and diagnostic efforts that characterize marine, estuarine, and
                                          anadromous fish habitats.


                                             National habitat outreach and educational activities including development and dissemination
                                          of the Habitat Conservation Biennial Report, and other products required by law (e.g., the
                                          National Plastics Pollution Report) are developed within the Program. The Office also has the
                                          lead for all briefings on matters regarding NMFS habitat research, and works closely with the
                                          NMFS Senior Scientist and the National Academy of Sciences.
















              16





                   IV. PROGRAM
                  ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                                                                         Location of NMFS Regional
                                                                                              and Science Centers







                       Figure 8. Location of
                                                                                                            R
                       NMFS Regional Offices
                       and Science Centers.










                                                   Management and research activities are the responsibility of five Regional Offices. Regional
                                                   programs reflect three important considerations: the pressures on living marine resource
                                                   habitats; the size of the area managed; and the recreational, commercial, and ecological values
                                                   of the species involved. The habitat programs in each region respond to unique regional issues
                                                   and geographic constraints. Each Region also has a Fisheries Science Center, some with
                                                   satellite laboratories, that carry out research programs on important fishery resource issues. All
                                                   5 regions have programs dealing with the habitats of various marine mammals and, in some
                                                   cases, endangered marine species such as whales, seals, sea lions, and turtles.



                                                   A. Headquarters Accomplishments

                                                      ELEVATION TO WASHINGTON, D.C.: POINTAU FER PERMIT

                                                   During March 1993, the NMFS Southeast Regional Director elevated the Corps' Point au Fer,
                                                   Louisiana, permit application to Washington, D.C. This permit application involved proposed
                                                   construction of a 3,160-acre impoundment on Point au Fer Island, a brackish marsh complex
                                                   about 28 miles southeast of Morgan City, Louisiana near the Gulf of Mexico. The project
                                                   purpose was to undertake "marsh management" to benefit waterfowl and retard marsh loss.
                                                   NMFS recommended against issuance of this permit because it would have adverse impacts on
                                                   living marine resources, including those under Magnuson Act Fishery Management Plans.
                                                   When the Corps' New Orleans District elected to issue the permit over NMFS opposition, the
                                                   issue was elevated. The Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere subsequently
                                                   raised the NMFS concerns to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. In the face
                                                   of the NMFS objections and before a final decision, the applicant chose to withdraw the
                                                   application.

                                                                                                                                                    17











              PROGRAM
             ACCOMPUSHMENTS








                                                                          A
                                                                          AM

                                                                           Z@7
                Figure 9. An aerial view of a                                      nm@
                marsh management project
                to benefit waterfowl.







                                              ELEVATION TO WASHINGTON, D.C.: PETROSTAR, INC. PERMIT

                                              Also in early 1993, the Corps' Alaska District announced its intention to authorize
                                              modification of its permit to allow for construction of a new oil pipeline at the Valdez
                                              Container Terminal in Valdez, Alaska. The pipeline would be used to deliver refined
                                              petroleum products (e.g., diesel and jet fuels) originating at a new refinery built nearby by
                                              Petrostar, Inc. to barges. Because of potential adverse effects of this permit, NMFS, the U.S.
                                              Fish and Wildlife Service, and the EPA issued opinions opposing this permit. On June 14,
                                              1993, the NOAA Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere objected in writing to the
                                              Assistant Secretary of the Army For Civil Works. In a response of July 14, 1993, the Army
                                              Secretary agreed that modification of the permit would result in substantial and unacceptable
                                              impacts on aquatic resources of national importance. Based on this finding, it was concluded
                                              that additional evaluation is required. The Alaska District Engineer was instructed to
                                              undertake additional studies, including the practicability of alternatives to the proposed site.

                                                                     WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL


                                              In late 199 1, NMFS, through the Department of Commerce, became the only Federal resource
                                              agency to oppose proposed revisions to the 1989 "Federal Manual for Identifying and
                                              Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands."


                                                 NMFS was concerned that the proposed revisions could affect its ability to carry out
                                              responsibilities and programs under Federal law (e.g., Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
                                              Management Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the
                                              Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). An analysis of the changes was conducted.

                                                 Based on its analysis, NMFS concluded that 2 of 3 wetland identification tests in the
                                              proposed manual had sound scientific basis (e.g., use of indicator soils and vegetation) and
                                              generally appeared to be workable in the field but only by persons with specialized training.
                                              The third test, a proposed mandatory hydrology criterion, appeared to have little or no scientific
                                              basis. Therefore, NMFS concluded that these tests were not appropriate for inclusion in the
                                              final manual. Additionally, NOAA submitted a formal recommendation that EPA support an
                                              independent and scientifically rigorous analysis of the proposed revisions. That suggestion
                                              was taken and the National Academy of Science is presently conducting such an analysis.

            18











                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPUSHMENTS












                                                                                                      A.,
                  Figure 10. Field research
                  project in progress to assess                                                                     AI
                  wetland identification and                                                                          N
                  importance.


                                                                 A




                                                                                                                    J


                                                                  WHITEHOUSE WETLANDS TASK FORCE


                                                On August 24, 1993, the Administration issued a comprehensive strategy entitled "Protecting
                                                America's Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible, and Effective Approach" for improvement of Federal
                                                wetlands programs. During the preceding three months, the Office provided the NOAA lead in
                                                preparation of this strategy. Its provisions are important to NMFS' habitat protection efforts. The
                                                initiative makes more than 40 changes to current wetlands policy including a more effective
                                                process so that developers can seek review of permit decisions without having to go to court. The
                                                plan closes a loophole in regulations that allowed certain destructive activities, such as draining
                                                wetlands, to go unregulated. The policy of "No Net Loss of Wetlands" will impose deadlines and
                                                provide guidance so that permitting decisions will be made in a timely and more predictable
                                                fashion.

                                                                     DOAINOAA COOPERATIVE PROGRAM


                                                In November 1990, John A. Knauss, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S.
                                                Department of Commerce, and Dr. G. Edward Dickey, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
                                                (Civil Works), announced an agreement to initiate a NOAA - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                                (Corps) fisheries habitat restoration and creation program. NOAA and the Corps implemented the
                                                Agreement during fiscal year 199 1. A budget of $456K was provided for the first year of this
                                                national effort. The agencies combined their authorities, resources, and expertise to mutually
                                                accomplish respective missions. This joint program supports the Administration's goal to protect
                                                wetlands.


                                                   The initiative is based on recommendations found in a 1990 study entitled NOAA-Corps Pilot
                                                Study to Restore and Create Fisheries Habitats. The study involved 12 NMFS Offices, 15 Corps
                                                Divisions and Districts, the Corps Waterways Experiment Station, 44 states and other interested
                                                parties.
                                                           Ilk










































                                                   The study involved construction and monitoring of an artificial reef in California, an oyster
                                                bar in Chesapeake Bay, an eelgrass nursery area in Maryland waters, grading and revegetating
                                                three disposal areas to create nursery habitat in North Carolina, salt marsh creation on dredged

                                                                                                                                                 19











              PROGRAM
              ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                               material deposit sites along with channel construction to establish fish production areas in
                                               Texas, and conversion of low elevation farmland to wetland fish-rearing habitat in the
                                               Sacramento River Delta, California.


                                                  Study results demonstrate the feasibility of integrating fisheries habitat restoration features
                                               into Corps projects, sometimes at no net increase in Corps project costs. Combining the
                                               construction capability of the Army Corps of Engineers and the expertise of NOAA's
                                               National Marine Fisheries Service produced a successful interagency program with the
                                               significant potential to increase habitat for the Nation's fish and shellfish and to improve
                                               scientific knowledge of habitat restoration technology.



                                                                AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSON ACT


                                               The Office developed a habitat provision for inclusion in NOAA's proposed amendments for
                                               Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. If enacted,
                                               the resulting habitat amendment would create an enhanced role for the Fishery Management
                                               Councils in protection of fish habitats. Under the amendment, the Councils would be
                                               responsible for identifying and designating "essential" fish habitats within U.S. marine and
                                               estuarine coastal areas. The resulting designated areas would provide guidance for the Corps,
                                               Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and other Federal agencies in development
                                               decisions which may affect fish and shellfish habitats. The proposed amendment is included
                                               in NOAA's 1995 legislative package.



                                                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INTERACTIONS


                                               During 1991-1992, staff participated in developing a syllabus for an interagency (Federal
                                               Highway Administration (FHWA), NMFS, FWS, COE, and EPA) course in alternative
                                               dispute resolution. The syllabus is now being used in the Department of Transportation -
                                               sponsored course, Practical Conflict Management-Skills to Resolve Highway and Wetlands
                                               Issues being given nationwide to state and Federal employees involved in environmental and
                                               resource protection.

                                                                       WATER OUALITY2000 (W02000)

                                               Staffparticipated in numerous WQ2000 Steering Committee meetings preparing the WQ2000
                                               FinalReport. The report, A National Water Agenda for the 21st Century, provides a sound
                                               conceptual framework from which to consider improvements to the CWA and other
                                               environmental laws. The contents of the report are being used by many lobbyists and
                                               consultants to advise Congress on changes to the CWA. To further implement the use of the
                                               WQ2000 Final Report, the Environmental Energy Institute has been holding Hill briefings on
                                               its recommendations. In addition, the chairman of the WQ2000 Steering Committee used the
                                               report for testimony before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the
                                               House Public Works Committee hearings related to reauthorization of the CWA.







            20










                  PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                                               INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
                                                                             EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA)

                                               ISTEA has $2.6 billion for enhancing/restoring environmental integrity associated with highway
                                               construction/repair over the next 5 years. NMFS staff participates as a member of an interagency
                                               team (FWHA, NMFS, FWS, COE, and EPA) whose mission is to guide regional managers during
                                               preplanning stages on how to successfully access these moneys by merging the National
                                               Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 404 permit processes. This proactive approach
                                               avoids lengthy delays and litigation due to faulty project design.

                                                                                 COASTAL AMERICA


                                               Coastal America, is a project-oriented, problem-solving partnership of Federal, State, and
                                               regional authority participants. Through its regionalized planning structure, Coastal America
                                               enables multiagency response to specific environmental problems that threaten coastal waters.
                                               This regionalized structure has enabled Coastal America to accomplish projects across the
                                               country that no single agency or program could have effectively done alone.

                                                  During 1991-1992, regional habitat protection staff represented NOAA and NMFS at
                                               meetings of the Coastal America Program's National Implementation Team. One of this team's
                                               important functions is to provide guidance to Regional Implementation Teams on how to identify
                                               and access agencies with funds earmarked for environmental efforts.

                                                  In addition, Habitat Protection's staff has participated in revising Coastal America's progress
                                               report, "Building Alliances to Restore Coastal Environments" and the reporters guide " Covering
                                               the Coasts." Both documents are now being distributed nationally as educational outreach tools.

                                                                NATIONAL OCEAN POLLUTION PROGRAM


                                               The Office coordinated the gathering and updating of information on NMFS pollution research
                                               during Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 and then compiled and prepared it for input to NOAA's
                                               National Ocean Pollution Program Office (NOPPO) for its use in developing the FY 1990-1991
                                               update of the "National Ocean Pollution Program Summary of Federal Programs and Projects,"
                                               required by the National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-273, as amended).

                                                  Funding for pollution-related research by all Fisheries Science Centers nationwide was
                                               $9,443,012 in FY1990 and $9,257,300 in FY1991. A total of 41 projects were pursued by the
                                               Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, and Alaska Fishery Science Centers.

                                                  Diversity among Regional research projects was high. Studies included broad multi-year,
                                               multi-disciplinary projects, generic studies, and site-specific activities. Examples are the
                                               following: biological impact studies of chemical contaminants and sewage sludge dumping on
                                               fisheries populations; impacts of waste disposal and habitat modification on coastal fish
                                               populations; characterization of the distribution and extent of coastal wetlands and life history
                                               patterns of fishery organisms-, larval recruitment; effects of contaminated estuaries on juvenile
                                               salmon; damage assessment of the impacts on Prince William Sound habitat resulting from the
                                               EXXON VALDEZ oil spill, and marine debris impacts on resources.






                                                                                                                                                21










            PROGRAM
            ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                 HABITAT CONSERVATION BROCHURE


                                               In response to Strategy 12 of the NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy that directs the NMFS
                                               to emphasize greater communication of its habitat conservation activities to its constituency
                                               (i.e., commercial and marine recreational fishing interests, academia, environmental groups,
                                               coastal residents, marine-oriented industries, the general public, and Congress), the Office,
                                               through a contract to the Center for Marine Conservation, developed and produced a Habitat
                                               Conservation Brochure. The brochure is used extensively to inform the general public and
                                               special interest groups about the NMFS habitat conservation program.


                                                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMITS


                                               Every 5 years the Corps of Engineers reviews its Nationwide Permits (NWP). These permits
                                               are for minor wetland activities which supposedly would have no individual or cumulative
                                               impact on the environment. The announcement contains detailed descriptions of the permits
                                               and invites public comment and hearings before final issuance of the permits.

                                                  The 1991 review listed 40 permits. Preliminary review by Habitat Protection HQ staff
                                               identified numerous permits that would do harm to habitat and could result in negative
                                               impacts on fisheries. Thanks to excellent cooperation from the Regions and NOAA General
                                               Counsel, NMFS prepared and submitted extensive comments on the Corps of Engineers
                                               proposed list. In some instances, Habitat Protection Staff attended public hearings on the
                                               projects. These combined efforts contributed to 4 of the permits being dropped from the list
                                               and some reduction of habitat damage from the 36 NWPs; adopted.


                                                      HABITAT VIDEO TAPE TEACHING UNITDEVELOPED



                                               OHP staff in cooperation with George Washington University's (GWTJ) International
                                               Institute of Tourism Studies produced a college-level teaching unit entitled "Agenda For
                                               Sustainable Island Tourism Development." The unit consists of a 28-minute video cassette
                                               basedonNMFS Southeast Region's guidelines forproposed wetland alteration, aneducational
                                               supplement in booklet form, and a copy of National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines For
                                               Proposed Wetland Alteration in the Southeastern United States.

                                                  The video applies habitat protection principles to the development of island ecotourism
                                               destinations. It is designed for training programs with government officials, economic
                                               consultants, resource management consultants and college students. The educational
                                               supplement and the guidelines are for the use of the instructor and/or the student. The materials
                                               are being promoted and distributed to foreign governments, academic institutions, private
                                               tourism development organizations and environmental preservation groups through GYV'U's
                                               International Institute of Tourism Studies.


                                                  This cooperative effort was funded by GY*rU. The materials have been well-received and
                                               are being widely distributed. Additional OHP guideline materials are being collected,
                                               reviewed, and evaluated for similar treatment.





            22










                  PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPUSHMENTS



                                                                 NA TIONA L ES TUA R Y PRO GRA M A CTI VITIES


                                                 NMFS regional Habitat staff have played an active role in many of the National Estuary Programs,
                                                 serving on committees and working groups to enhance attention to relevant habitat and resource
                                                 issues. These groups address potential problems which may impact resources and increase
                                                 awareness toward the critical habitat and resources involved in the project. Committees also
                                                 coordinate involvement for participating organizations which have a role in the program.


                                                    The Southeast Region continues to be active in the National Estuary Program. Sevenprograms
                                                 are located in the region, and staff are actively involved, participating on most management and
                                                 technical committees, including the upcoming Corpus Christi program. The Southwest region is
                                                 also active in regional programs. Regional staff participate on management and technical
                                                 committees, as well as research and monitoring studies for the San Francisco Bay Project. In the
                                                 Santa Monica Bay Program, a NMFS Habitat staff member served as co-chairperson of the
                                                 Marine Habitat Subcommittee (see Southwest Regional Accomplishments). Although the
                                                 National Estuary Program currently resides within NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program, increased
                                                 involvement and leadership from the NMFS Habitat Protection Headquarters level is anticipated
                                                 in the future.



                                                                      CHESAPEAKE BAY OFFICE CREATED


                                                 In response to Congressional intent that NOAA become more involved in the interstate,
                                                 interagency Chesapeake Bay Program, NMFS has established an office adjacent to EPA's
                                                 Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis, Maryland to facilitate coordination with and input
                                                 to the Bay cleanup effort. The Division coordinates NOAA participation in Bay Program expert
                                                 subcommittees, represents NOAA, administers certain research grants, and maintains cognizance
                                                 of all NOAA activities with relevance to the Bay.

                                                                    CL EA N WA TER A C T REA U THORIZA TION


                                                 Staff of the Office of Habitat Protection have served as the lead for NOAA participation in the
                                                 interagency Clean Water Act (CWA) reauthorization process chaired by the EPA and have
                                                 participated in the interagency work group chaired by the White House Office on Environmental
                                                 Policy to develop a consensus on wetlands policy issues. The Administration position on CWA
                                                 was released in January 1994 as "President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative," which articulates
                                                 the five key policy issues: nonpoint source pollution, watershed management, toxics/water
                                                 quality criteria and standards, funding, and enforcement.

                                                 B. Northeast Region


                                                 The Northeast Region with its Office in Gloucester, Massachusetts has critical estuarine and
                                                 riverine habitats to protect and faces significant development pressures. The Region also
                                                 manages long-established, economically-important offshore and coastal fisheries. The Northeast
                                                 Fisheries Science Center (NEFSQ in Woods Role, Massachusetts conducts research related to
                                                 North- and Mid-Atlantic offshore, coastal, and estuarine species and their habitats. Its laboratories
                                                 study the effects of ocean dumping, industrial and domestic contaminants, and urban and
                                                 industrial expansion on fish, marine mammals, endangered species and all associated habitats.


                                                                                                                                                    23










            PROGRAM
            ACCOMPUSHMENTS



                                                                               REGION WIDE

                                                              Increased Involvement in Hydroelectric Projects

                                           In the past, due to limited staff and budget in the Northeast Region, NMFS has deferred review
                                           of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission applications to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
                                           Because of the large number of projects being relicensed in the region, the depleted status of
                                           migratory fish stocks, and the tremendous potential of these long term licenses to have significant
                                           adverse effects on resources for which NMFS is responsible, the Regional Office is increasing its
                                           participation in the review of these applications.

                                              The Habitat and Protected Resources Division requested technical assistance from the
                                           Northwest Region's Environmental and Technical Services Division. A hydraulic engineer from
                                           the Northwest visited the region for two weeks in 1993 to evaluate projects and to train fisheries
                                           engineers. This was the first component of a regional effort to develop in-house expertise to
                                           support NMFS evaluations and recommendations for fish passage, and to maintain high quality
                                           habitat for anadromous fish.


                                                                             Mapping Piver Basins

                                           In an effort to view habitat concerns from a broader perspective, NMFS is generating data bases
                                           for individual river basins throughout the northeast. By keeping track of cumulative impacts to
                                           a particular river system rather than addressing each potential impact individually, NMFS will
                                           better able to assess the health of the system and the stresses affecting it. Spawning and nursery
                                           habitat areas for anadromous fish, the location of dams with and without fish passage, and sites
                                           of point source pollution arejust a few of the types of data being collected and compiled. Thegoal
                                           is to eventually incorporate this information into a geographic information system so that it may
                                           be readily accessed, modified, and displayed.


                                                                    Efforts to Protect Anadromous Fish


                                           NMFS continues to work effectively through the Section 10/404 program to implement its
                                           mission relative to anadromous fish conservation, enhancement, and restoration. The Region was
                                           successful in having a stream barrier removed from Burch Branch in Prince Georges County, MD,
                                           to partially compensate for filling 3,000 linear feet of headwater stream. The removal will restore
                                           spawning river herring runs to approximately one-half mile of pristine upper perennial stream.

                                             The regional staff was also successful in having its recommendations incorporated into the
                                           permit issued for Greensprings Plantation, a housing project near Williamsburg, VA. The plans
                                           included withdrawing and storing water from Powhatan Creek for irrigating two golf courses. The
                                           permit was conditioned to prohibit removal of any water from Powhatan Creek between February
                                           15 and June I when anadromous fish are migrating and spawning.

                                             NMFS worked with the permit applicant for a sand and gravel mining operation on the Biles
                                           Island in the Delaware River, PA, to modify plans for a compensatory habitat enhancement
                                           proposal. The original plan would have resulted in hypoxic or even anoxic conditions that could
                                           adversely affect anadromous fish, including American shad and shortnose sturgeon. Because of
                                           NMFS efforts, the plan was modified to eliminate the undesirable conditions.




            24










                  PROGRAM
                  ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                                  Water Supply Projects

                                                   Water supply proposals still constitute a major area of activity for NMFS' Oxford, Maryland
                                                   office. Major effort has been expended on the Churchmans Marsh proposal located in New
                                                   Castle County, DE. This project would convert more than 90 acres of tidal freshwater marsh
                                                   into a water supply reservoir. Our evaluation of the applicant's preliminary alternatives
                                                   analysis suggested that it was biased toward the applicant's preferred alternative. NMFS, in
                                                   collaboration with the COE and EPA, was successful in having the consultants prepare a
                                                   detailed, objective analysis of potential alternatives.

                                                      Other significant water supply proposals include Spotsylvania and Henrico Counties, VA,
                                                   projects. One of the Spotsylvania alternatives includes a dam on the Rappahannock River at
                                                   Fredericksburg that will require fish passage facilities. The Henrico proposal is to withdraw
                                                   water from the James River, which has resulted in implementation of an Instream Flow Study
                                                   to determine how much water can be allocated without adversely affecting aquatic resources.

                                                      NMFS has recommended that a similar flow study be performed for the Lehigh River, PA,
                                                   where proposed withdrawals for water supply threaten efforts to restore anadromous fish to
                                                   the watershed. Both the Pennsylvania State and USFWS have supported regional staff
                                                   recommendations to the Corps.
                                                                                                                        M
                                                                                                                                  W;,=
                                                                                                                                o 077M





                     Figure 11. Dam releasing
                     impounded water used for
                     irrigation and other water
                     supply projects.                                                                   _'few










                                                             Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management CounciR (MAFMC)

                                                   NMFS continued to work with Council staff to educate the COE on the Council's purpose and
                                                   function, the interactions between MAFMC and NMFS, and the Corps' responsibilities under
                                                   the Magnuson Act. The COE has begun to recognize the expertise and opinion of MAFMC.

                                                      MAFMC's interest in developing detailed habitat maps continues. The Council has
                                                   recently funded MD Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to do a demonstration project
                                                   to map critical habitat. NMFS's Oxford Laboratory staff continues to advise the Council to
                                                   proceed cautiously with respect to "critical" habitat mapping because when one area is
                                                   identified as critical, the implication is that other habitat lacks value or importance.


                                                                                                                                               25










            PROGRAM
            ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                            Additionally, the Oxford Laboratory staff continued to brief the Council's Habitat Committee
                                          on issues of environmental significance. This interaction has resulted in the introduction of
                                          several motions to the full Council in support of NMFS' position on Assateague Point (MD),
                                          LaGuardia Airport (NY), and several dredging proposals in Anne Arundel County (MD). Due
                                          to NMFS input, MAFMC also approved a motion to oppose ocean disposal of dioxin-laden
                                          dredged spoil at the Mud Dump Site in New York Bight.






                                                                    National Marine Fisheries Service
                                                                             Regional Councils


            Figure 12. Regional Fishery
            Management Council
            Jurisdictions.





                                                                         0 Vl@
                                                                                                CAM 09 0-we                C.vw:@ 1
                                                                                             Fow-Y "MV C-44









                                                                                  DELAWARE



                                                                           Artificial Reef Planning

                                          Delaware Department ofNatural Resources andEnvironmental Control (DNREC), incoordination
                                          with NMFS, is preparing an Artificial Reef Plan for Delaware Bay and Atlantic coastal waters.
                                          Of 16 candidate sites, approximately 6 will be selected for development. We have directed them
                                          away from scrap tires as a primary "material of opportunity". Large-scale use of tires gives the
                                          perception that the artificial reef program substitutes as a solid waste disposal operation.


                                                       Delaware Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program

                                          As a result of modifications in the 309 program mandated by Coastal Zone Management Act
                                          reauthorization, Delaware CZM staff will review all state activities to ensure consistency with the
                                          approved plan. It is anticipated that these changes should reduce or eliminate conflicts between
                                          NMFS and certain Delaware agencies in the future. Additionally, Delaware plans to develop a
                                          Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for northern Delaware and has requested NMFS
                                          participation. Improved working relations within DE is a result of NMFS' efforts to work more
                                          closely with Delaware and NOAA CZM personnel on National Estuarine Research Reserve and
                                          other CZM initiatives.


            26










                  PROGRAM
                  ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                           Delaware Watershed Management

                                                  NMFS is working with Delaware DNREC on developing a holistic approach to watershed
                                                  management. The initiative complements plans to develop a SAMP for northern DE. The plan
                                                  will outline a framework for managing aquatic resources (e.g., surface and ground water, living
                                                  resources, physical habitat, etc.) from a watershed perspective. The management plan will
                                                  define goals and objectives, provide criteria for identifying high priority watersheds, and
                                                  present a flexible process for planning and implementing watershed protection measures. The
                                                  plan will be comprehensive in its approach by addressing total ecological health, including
                                                  water chemistry, nearshore coastal waters, and identifying linkages between terrestrial and
                                                  aquatic systems.

                                                                                            MAINE


                                                              Seagrass Survey Documents and Saves Valuable Habitat

                                                  A 1992 exploratory seagrass survey recommended by NMFS identified extremely valuable
                                                  eelgrass beds in an area proposed for industrial development in Penobscot Bay, Maine. An
                                                  environmental analysis of a proposed new port development project had been conducted
                                                  previously but failed to consider potential impacts to shallow subtidal habitats. Thus, during
                                                  scoping efforts for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement NMFS recommended
                                                  that the state Department of Transportation conduct a diver survey of the project area.

                                                     NMFS' advice was based on a review of past records of observations made near the project
                                                  area. The survey, using a study protocol designed by NMFS, documented the presence of
                                                  extensive eelgrass beds (over 20 acres) which support a variety of finfish and shellfish
                                                  including menhaden, scallops, and lobsters. The discovery of these resources dramatically
                                                  affected the project's environmental review, and ultimately lead the COE and Federal
                                                  Highway Administration to support the analysis of alternative sites for the project.

                                                    11111111116ol-Z













                       Figure 13. Staff
                       preparing seagrass for
                       planting.










                                                                                                                                              27










           PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                           Net-Pen Aquaculture

                                         From 1990 through 1992, NMFS took a lead role in developing guidelines for net-pen aquaculture
                                         facilities in Maine. The guidelines were intended to promote responsible site selection, minimize
                                         environmental impacts of net-pen aquaculture and relieve applicants of unnecessary data
                                         collection burdens.


                                            NMFS organizedan attemptamongthe appropriate agencies to establislijoint state andFederal
                                         guidelines for aquaculture projects. This landmark effort combined the permitting requirements
                                         under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; EPA requirements for NPDES permits under the
                                         Clean Water Act; Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requirements under Maine's
                                         water quality classification program and clean water law; and Department of Marine Resources
                                         (DMR) requirements under the Maine Aquaculture Leasing Act. In addition, the guidelines
                                         accommodated the concerns of NMFS, USFWS, and the Maine Department of Inland Fish and
                                         Game. The result was a streamlined regulatory process for the public, and better opportunities
                                         for protection of aquatic habitat.


                                            In 1993 NMFS began using divers to determine first-hand the impacts on benthic habitats that
                                         result from fish fanning. Participation in these dive investigations allows NMFS to work
                                         cooperatively with the state to address the concerns of both. The COE and state now rely on
                                         NMFS' evaluation of these sites before any decision is made.



                                                                                 MARYLAND



                                                                    Mitigation Banking Agreement

                                         NMFS staff have been active participants on the Mitigation Task Force. This group, organized by
                                         the Baltimore District COE, is composed of state and Federal regulatory and resource agencies
                                         and charged with reaching consensus on a variety of topics relative to compensatory mitigation.
                                         The Mitigation Task Force has completed a series of issue papers that include replacement ratios,
                                         site selection and plan development methodologies, monitoring protocols, and performance
                                         standards. The papers provide guidance and result in consistency when reviewing and evaluating
                                         compensatory proposals.

                                            The TaskForcehas also drafted a Mitigation Banking Agreement which provides guidancefor
                                         constructing and operating one or more mitigation banks by the Maryland Department of
                                         Transportation. The agreement is near finalization and concurrence was anticipated in July 1993.

                                            Several other mitigation banks, both with and without benefit of formal agreements, have been
                                         proposed in the past year. VA DOT has nearly exhausted the mitigation credits in their existing
                                         bank and is seeking one or more replacement sites. Additionally, Prince Georges County, MD
                                         Department of Public Works; the City of Virginia Beach, VA; and Wetland Studies and Solutions,
                                         Inc., a private company, are seeking approvals for wetland banks.

                                            It has been difficult for the Mitigation Task Force to maintain consistency when reviewing
                                         these various proposals. Clearly, there are advantages to mitigation banking with state highway
                                         agencies when dealing with large numbers of relatively small impacts along a linear corridor.


           28










                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                      However, when private, profit-motivated corporations enter the wetland banking arena, the
                                                      results may be tantamount to buying and selling permits. The task force continues to proceed
                                                      cautiously to preserve its ability to negotiate with the Corps and would-be bankers for the
                                                      benefit of living marine resources.


                                                                 Oyster Reef Restoration, Neale Sound and Bonum Creek

                                                      The Neale Sound and Bonum Creek projects were constructed according to the Memorandum
                                                      of Agreement (MOA) between the COE and the NMFS on the beneficial use of dredged
                                                      material for fish habitat restoration. Following the success of the pilot project in Slaughter
                                                      Creek, MD, other sites were investigated for their potential for restoring oyster reefs in
                                                      Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. These two sites in the Potomac River were identified as
                                                      having characteristics suitable for restoration of oyster habitat. At both places, sandy dredged
                                                      material was deposited and covered with oyster shell to promote attachment of oyster spat. The
                                                      result was the successful establishment of productive oyster habitat on approximately 5.3 acres
                                                      at Neale Sound (1991) and 4.1 acres at Bonum Creek (1992).


                                                                         Patapsco River Anadromous Fish Restoration

                                                      One of the commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to eliminate impediments to the
                                                      migration of anadromous fish. Pursuant to that commitment, the State of Maryland identified
                                                      the Patapsco River Basin with its four major and many minor blockages as a priority for
                                                      restoration.


                                                         At the mouth of the Patapsco is Baltimore Harbor where development proposals requiring
                                                      COE permits are required. The NMFS Northeast Region reviews such proposals and attempts
                                                      to mitigate adverse impacts to living marine resources. Because of the highly-developed and
                                                      frequently degraded nature of habitats in Baltimore Harbor, on-site mitigation is often not
                                                      feasible or is undesirable. As an alternative, NMFS was instrumental in having mitigation
                                                      requirements directed to habitat restoration efforts in other parts of the Patapsco Basin. As a
                                                      result, more than $600,000 was channeled to the MD DNR for construction of fish ladders at
                                                      Simpkins and Daniels Dams. With completion of the Patapsco restoration effort, more than
                                                      30 miles of the mainstem of the river will be reclaimed for migratory fish.

                                                         Additionally, NMFS was successful in having the Seagrams Dam removed from Deep Run,
                                                      a tributary to the Patapsco, as part of the mitigation for a highway (1- 195) construction project.
                                                      Removal of this blockage restored 5 to 6 miles of stream to fish migration.


                                                                                     Assateague Point Marina

                                                      NMFS, with strong support from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC),
                                                      was successful in preventing construction of Assateague Point Marina, a proposed 250-slip
                                                      marina in Sinepuxent Bay, Maryland. Baltimore District COE has denied the proposal because
                                                      of potential impacts tojuvenile summer flounder. The marina was to be located in an important
                                                      summer flounder nursery area. Summer flounder stocks are extremely depressed, partially
                                                      because of habitat degradation, necessitating strict management measures.




                                                                                                                                                       29










            PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                            MARYLANDIVIRGINIA


                                                      Sea Turtle Issues Raised as Relevant to Navigation Projects

                                          Federal navigation projects implemented by the COE are routinely reviewed by the Habitat
                                          Program of the Northeast Region. In 1992, it became evident that sea turtle issues were becoming
                                          increasingly more frequent with proposals in lower Chesapeake Bay and coastal Virginia.
                                          Coordination of these proposals with NMFS has resulted in initiation of a joint Section 7 of the
                                          Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation with Norfolk and Baltimore Districts and the Coast
                                          Guard. Joint consultation should afford a more comprehensive evaluation of the issues and
                                          greater protection of the resource.

                                                                              MASSACHUSETTS


                                                               Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site Designation

                                          NMFS was heavily involved in the site designation process for the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
                                          Site for clean dredged material completed in 1993. The site is located near the interim site, the
                                          historic industrial waste disposal site, and the recently designated Stellwagen Bank National
                                          Marine Sanctuary. The new site was selected after a thorough analysis of the options, impacts
                                          and site management alternatives that could be used to mitigate adverse effects of dredged
                                          material disposal.


                                             The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized the biological value of the general
                                          area and Stellwagen Bank specifically. To accommodate the multiple services derived from the
                                          area, EPA used a public review process supplemented with joint research efforts and a
                                          collaboration of resource managers and researchers. That process recognized the site limitations
                                          of water depth, protected and directed fishery use, the proximity of the industrial waste site, and
                                          many of the needs of the marine transportation industry. The designated site and its management
                                          represent a new level of appreciation for the need to make dredged material disposal workable
                                          for all concerned interests.



                                                                 Boston Central Artery / Tunnel Project

                                          NMFS' application of a holistic approach to the protection of wetlands and waterways and
                                          mitigation of impacts for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project has greatly benefited the marine
                                          environment. Using this approach and working through the Water Resources Subcommittee,
                                          which was formed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of impacts to wetlands and waterways
                                          from the project and the proposed mitigation effort, NMFS has been able to protect living marine
                                          resources while avoiding unnecessary and costly time delays for the project.

                                             Blasting for the Third Harbor Tunnel had the potential to affect marine mammals and
                                          anadromous fish. NMFS and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries suggested that by
                                          instituting measures such as using observers on vessels and acoustic devices to detect the
                                          presence of marine species, blasting could be allowed to continue without adverse impacts to
                                          these resources. This resulted in considerable time and cost savings for the applicant.



           30










                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                        Material dredged during the highway project will be used to cap the 9-acre Spectacle Island,
                                                     an inactive former landfill that is currently leaching refuse into Boston Harbor. This will close
                                                     the landfill and prepare it to be eventually turned into a public park.
                                                        The closure of this landfill requires filling 11.5 acres of waterways. The Water Resources
                                                     Subcommittee has designed a mitigation package with components both inside and outside
                                                     Boston to mitigate for impacts involved with this project. Two sites within Boston, the Belle
                                                     Isle Fishing Company and Calf Pasture, will be excavated to recreate intertidal and subtidal
                                                     habitat. In addition, 13 acres of salt marsh will be restored at Rumney Marsh in Revere.
                                                     Especially noteworthy is an artificial reef in Boston Harbor which was included in response
                                                     to NMFS' concerns over the permanent loss of fish habitat.


                                                                                        NEWHAMPSHIRE

                                                                Portsmouth Port Authority Reduces Loss of Fish Habitat

                                                     NMFS' involvement through 1991 and 1992 in the environmental review of a port expansion
                                                     project on the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth, New Hampshire helped to minimize habitat
                                                     losses for fish and shellfish and gain substantial compensation for unavoidable impacts.

                                                        The project involved an area which has endured cumulative habitat losses associated with
                                                     coastal development. The habitats at the project site consist of a linked complex of salt marsh,
                                                     intertidal flats, and eelgrass beds. These habitats provide valuable shelter, foraging, and
                                                     nursery habitat for river herring, Atlantic silversides, winter flounder, American lobster,
                                                     softshell clams, and other recreational and commercially important species.

                                                        NMFS' persistence, along with efforts by the EPA and USFWS, persuaded the applicant
                                                     to modify the design of the port expansion, reducing direct losses of eelgrass beds and intertidal
                                                     flats by over six acres. NMFS was also instrumental in developing a mitigation plan for the
                                                     project which will compensate for unavoidable habitat losses and advance the knowledge base
                                                     regarding seagrass restoration technology in New England.


                                                                                             NEW YORK

                                                                            Passaic River Flood Protection Project

                                                     Congress authorized the New York District COE to conduct feasibility studies on a proposed $6
                                                     billion tunnel connecting the densely populated, flood prone upper watershed of the Passaic River
                                                     Basin in northern New Jersey with Newark Bay. The tunnel is expected to be 20 miles long and
                                                     40 feet in diameter, and is expected to deliver flood stage waters to Newark Bay in an hour and a
                                                     half as opposed to the two days it now takes.

                                                        As part of the feasibility studies, the COE agreed to sponsor a NMFS1 Northeast Fisheries
                                                     Science Center (NEFSC) proposal to conduct baseline studies in Newark Bay for approximately
                                                     $340,000. Sampling includes trawling and gill-netting forfish, grab samples for benthic organisms,
                                                     ichdiyoplankton sampling and hydrography. To date, studies show evidence of a much more
                                                     abundant fauna than previously expected. Fish sampled include striped bass, white perch, winter
                                                     flounder, river herrings, and tomcod.



                                                                                                                                                      31










           PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                            The Regional Office supports the studies which provide insights into environmental impacts
                                         of the proposed project as well as vital information on a piece of the estuarine ecosystem not
                                         previously studied. The information is already proving its worth in determining future directions
                                         of the COE's dredged material management program.


                                                                            Iroquois Gas Pipeline

                                         The design, environmental review, emplacement and right-of-way restoration for the 24-inch
                                         Iroquois Gas Pipeline from Canada to Long Island, New York was facilitated by close and
                                         continuous involvement by NMFS. Endangered species, anadromous and nearshore finfish and
                                         shellfish resources were at risk. Through use of a coordinated mix of mitigation measures the
                                         project was designed to allow rapid and continuous placement over the entire 536 mile length.
                                         More than 27 miles of the alignment were subtidal, crossing Long Island Sound from Milford, CT
                                         to Northport, NY. This reach included over 2 miles of shellfish beds that were initially trenched
                                         for the armored pipe, backfilled to grade and productivity restored by placement of empty oyster
                                         shells. Almost one hundred acres of commercially-harvested oyster beds were disrupted and
                                         along the remaining alignment, benthic migrations were insured by requiring that at least two
                                         thirds of the pipe be buried. More than six years of coordination carried the project from
                                         conception to completion.


                                                Coastal Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Activities Under a
                                                            "Programmatic General Permit" Arrangement

                                         As part of its efforts under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, USFWS applied
                                         to the COE for a Programmatic General Permit to conduct a variety of wetland creation and
                                         restoration projects at unspecified locations on Long Island's south shore. The benefits of the
                                         General Permit include eliminating the need to apply for individual permits, focusing State and
                                         Federal marsh restoration plans into a more coherent effort and improving interagency coordination.
                                         Potentially, hundreds of acres of tidal wetlands may be restored or enhanced under this
                                         interagency initiative.

                                            Most of the activities proposed for Long Island's south shore will be conducted and funded as
                                         a joint venture among the USFWS and the New York State Department of Environmental
                                         Conservation Wetlands and Mosquito Control units. Nearly 75 tidal wetlands are currently being
                                         contemplated for restoration and enhancement under this program. Together with the State and
                                         Federal partners, EPA, the COE, and NMFS negotiated the terms and conditions for the General
                                         Permit. Typical activities included in the General Permit are culvert installation, tide gate
                                         removal, appropriate intertidal grades and sprigging restoration, and Open Marsh Water
                                         Management. Once project plans are prioritized and funding is allocated, the resource agencies
                                         will continue to cooperate by attending pre- and post-constmction site reviews.


                                                Negotiations With Commercial/Residential Developers Reduce
                                                                         Aquatic Resource Impacts

                                         NMFS staff have been active in pre-application coordination with representatives of the Trump
                                         organization and other interested parties regarding the proposed Riverside South development
                                         adjacent to the Hudson River on Manhattan's West Side. Upland portions of the project will include
                                         re-routing a highway as well as constructing mixed commercial, residential, and recreational space.

           32










                    PROGRAM
                    ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                       A unique aspect of the proposal is the applicant's stated desire to incorporate environmental
                                                       enhancements such as a tidal salt marsh and freshwater pond into the park design. The marsh
                                                       portion of this activity would require considerable discharge of fill and other site amendments
                                                       to bring portions of the coastal zone to a suitable intertidal grade to support cordgrass.

                                                         The project would destroy or degrade at least 200 acres of critical overwintering habitat for
                                                       juvenile striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus.)
                                                       NMFS staff provided early guidance that discouraged the applicant from pursuing the fill
                                                       aspect of the project further. However, regional staff will continue to cooperate with the
                                                       applicant as project plans are refined and will encourage incorporation of all appropriate
                                                       environmental amenities in the final design.


                                                                Coordination with the Navy on Stapleton Homeport Repairs

                                                       New York Harbor is experiencing accelerated decay of wooden portions of its infrastructure
                                                       due to a resurgence of local marine borer populations that may be linked to improved water
                                                       quality. Due to reduced structural integrity, many applicants including the Navy, have applied
                                                       for authorization for the necessary repairs. The situation is particularly severe at the Navy's
                                                       Stapleton Homeport on Staten Island where several acres of relieving platform and appurtenant
                                                       structures are expected to collapse within the next several years.


                                                         The Navy's preferred alternative based on cost and logistics would destroy several acres of
                                                       primarily subtidal rip rap that provides cover and habitat for a variety of marine finfish and
                                                       invertebrates. In conjunction with the other Federal resource agencies and the New York State
                                                       Department of Environmental Conservation, NMFS is negotiating with the Navy to build a
                                                       moderate profile reef nearby as in-kind compensation. The structure would be designed to
                                                       attract local and transient organisms such as American lobster (Homarus americanus), crabs
                                                       (Cancer sp.), black sea bass (Centropristis striata) and other species that appear to be using
                                                       habitat beneath the existing relieving platform. This option would retain similar habitat
                                                       functions and values and minimize disruption to Navy operations at the Homeport facilities.


                                                                   Proposed Runway Safety Overrun at LaGuardia Airport

                                                       LaGuardia Airport's Runway 13-3 1, which terminates on the East River and in Flushing Bay,
                                                       has virtually no safety overrun to accommodate aborted takeoffs and other emergencies. The
                                                       Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standard for the existing aircraft using the airport is
                                                       1000 feet of standard width runway plus adjacent emergency vehicle access lanes. Due to the
                                                       presence of a Federal Navigation channel and other factors, the applicants can only extend the
                                                       runway approximately 500 feet waterward into Flushing Bay. Regardless of whether the
                                                       structure is solid fill or a platform, project construction will destroy approximately 22 acres of
                                                       littoral habitat and an additional 3-4 acres of intertidal salt marsh.


                                                          NMFS has been negotiating with the applicant, COE, EPA, and USFWS regarding an
                                                       acceptable compensation plan. There is concern that the preferred alternative, excavating an
                                                       earthen berm lying to the south of the runway, will induce mud waves and cause erosion of an
                                                       expansive mudflat that has accreted to the lee of the berm since it was constructed in the 1920's.
                                                       In addition to accelerating local dredging schedules, NMFS is concerned that contaminants
                                                       held in the sediments will be resuspended. The Corps of Engineers has agreed to conduct a
                                                       modelling study to determine the impacts associated with berm removal, a topic which was not
                                                       included in the Environmental Impact Statement for the project.
                                                                                                                                                       33









          PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                      NEW YORKINEW JERSEY



                                                         EXXON BAYWAY Habitat Restoration Efforts


                                       On January I and 2*of 1990, about 567,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil spilled out of EXXON's 6-
                                       mile long pipeline from the BAYWAY refinery under the Arthur Kill.

                                           Underprovisions of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Federal government
                                       and the States of New York and New Jersey filed suit against Exxon. The corporation agreed to
                                       an out-of-court settlement under provisions of the 1977 amendments to Section 311 of the
                                       FWPCA. The settlement included $15 million dollars to restore the damaged environment.


                                           Part of the settlement called for the establishment of a Trustee Committee to oversee use of
                                       settlement funds for restoration. The Trustee Committee includes one representative each from
                                       DOI, NOAA (NMFS), NYS, NJ, NYC, and the City of Elizabeth, NJ. The Trustee Committee
                                       has established a Technical Advisory Committee, comprised of one representative from each of
                                       the Trustee agencies. The Trustee Committee also works with a public advisory committee
                                       consisting of representatives of environmental groups.

                                           To date, the Trustee Committee has entertained 15 resolutions to spend the settlement funds
                                       and has approved 11. Approved resolutions include land acquisition, salt marsh restoration, avian
                                       studies, and the hiring of an administrative assistant. Future work will include more acquisitions
                                       and the completion of a comprehensive restoration plan.

                                           Through these two committees, NMFS uses its habitat management expertise to direct
                                       restoration efforts and direct funding toward goals that support NOAA habitat protection
                                       mandates.




















             Figure 14. Coastal oil
                                                                                         A*"
             fields.





                                                                                           4-
                                                                                                            g*4 0,
                                                                             :7 @-.-


          34










                  PROGRAM
                  ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                    C. Southeast Region

                                                    The Southeast Region with its office in St. Petersburg, Florida (see figure 10) has large areas
                                                    of productive and commercially valuable marine, estuarine, and riverine habitats that are under
                                                    severe pressure from urban and industrial development. Accordingly, this region concentrates
                                                    its programs on the review of the more than 4,000 individual and public projects each year that
                                                    propose to alter wetlands. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) in Miami, Florida
                                                    studies the effects of habitat degradation and loss on the estuarine and coastal ecology and food
                                                    chains of the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic. Significant research projects are under
                                                    way to determine habitat use by species, habitat values, and restoration and creation of fish
                                                    habitat.



                                                                                          REGION WIDE

                                                                 Research on Created Marsh and Seagrass UtWaation

                                                    To increase understanding of the role of created marsh and seagrass meadows as habitat to
                                                    living marine resources and in the stabilization of sediment, NMFS and the COE modified
                                                    three eroding dredged material disposal sites in North Carolina. This effort was initiated in
                                                    1987 and was conducted under a joint memorandum of agreement to restore and create fish
                                                    habitat. The original research design of these three sites incorporated examination of animal
                                                    linkages between marsh habitat composed of smooth cordgrass and adjacent seagrass habitat.

                                                       Marsh was created and seagrass planted using an experimental design that would allow
                                                    various planting methods and designs to be independently tested and compared. As a
                                                    consequence of the research efforts, marsh and seagrass habitats have been established. As of
                                                    spring 1992, the smooth cordgrass plantings had colonized the unplanted portions of the study
                                                    sites, forming continuous marsh and the surviving seagrass plantings have merged into solid

                                                                                                                  ""g













                         Figure 15. Planting
                         marsh grasses.
                                                                                                                    Jrv



                                                                                       AW
                                                                                                                            0


                                                                                                                       V



                                                                                                                                                   35










           PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                          beds. A 3-foot-wide strip of oyster culch was placed along some of the marsh edges. The effect
                                          of culch on increasing stabilization of the sediments and on increasing habitat diversity will be
                                          examined. NMFS believes that living marine resources will begin using the culch and that this
                                          area and the adjacent marsh will support more animals than those marsh areas without culch.

                                             The data on use of created marsh and seagrass habitat by living marine resources during the
                                          initial 3 years of the study will be used for study development during year 6 (1993) and year 7
                                          (1994) of the experiments. Information on plant colonization and animal use of these habitats
                                          for the 3-year study period are currently being analyzed. Preliminary data on the culch phase of
                                          the study is also under analysis.

                                                                                    FLORIDA


                                                        Seagrass Restoration On Treasure Hunting Excavations

                                          At the request of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the Beaufort Laboratory of NMFS'
                                          Southeast Fisheries Science Center initiated a seagrass restoration project within the boundaries
                                          of the sanctuary. During 1992, underwater excavation occurred in connection with treasure
                                          hunting activities. The excavations varied in size and occurred in turtle grass dominated seagrass
                                          meadows. The excavation resulted in direct habitat losses and associated mounds of excavation
                                          debris are being eroded onto surrounding seagrass beds.


                                             Beginning in May 1993, staff from the Beaufort Laboratory conducted a cooperative effort
                                          with Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary staff to restore bottom topography at some locations. Once
                                          recontoured, seagrasses will be transplanted at the sites. To compensate for the exceptionally slow
                                          growth and colonization rate of turtle grass, faster growing species of seagrasses will be
                                          transplanted to the sites and evaluated for performance. The recolonization effort is expected to
                                          require several years and periodic monitoring is planned.


                                                        Coastal America Restoration Project At Cockroach Bay

                                          A $300,000 grant to the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) was one of the first
                                          announced under the Coastal America initiative. The Tampa Bay NEP grant launched an
                                          ambitious habitat restoration project expected to extend over the next 10 to 20 years. NMFS is
                                          a project sponsor and part of the group that helped to obtain approval for the grant.

                                             Planned work will restore a 65 1 -acre site acquired by the Hillsborough County Environmental
                                          Lands Acquisition and Protection Program. A mosaic of wetlands and uplands will be created to
                                          improve water quality and restore estuarine and coastal habitats. This will restore significant
                                          habitat for fisheries within the Tampa Bay system, an estuary that has lost more than 11,000 acres
                                          of intertidal wetlands.


                                             Much of the restoration started in the fall of 1992 occurred at Cockroach Bay which, despite
                                          its name, is the crown jewel of the Tampa Bay estuary system. The restoration work at the Bay
                                          will be the largest ever in Florida and one of the largest restoration construction efforts in the
                                          country.





           36










                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                      The project is coordinated by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The
                                                   Cockroach Bay Restoration Alliance, an advisory committee whose members represent
                                                   business and all levels of government including NMFS, is designing and implementing the
                                                   plan. The conceptual plan for phase one's 200-acre area has been completed and approved for
                                                   implementation at an estimated cost of $2.1 million. Survey work and detailed designs are
                                                   complete. Volunteers have begun removing non-indigenous species and cleaning up the site.
                                                   The first phase of the work will produce varied habitats in a series of interconnected water
                                                   basins with differing salinity levels. New ponds to provide biological pretreatment of
                                                   stormwater before it enters the bay are also included in phase one.

                                                      In addition to funding from Coastal America and the State of Florida, the Florida
                                                   Department of Environmental Regulation and the Hillsborough County Environmental
                                                   Protection Commission have pledged $200,000 each to the restoration effort. The Southwest
                                                   Florida Water Management District's Surface Water Improvement and Management program
                                                   has committed an additional $650,000 to the restoration. Hillsborough County's purchase of
                                                   the site for $2.04 million made the program possible. The Florida Department of Natural
                                                   Resources, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, NMFS, EPA, USFWS, USGS, and
                                                   COE also are part of the sponsoring coalition.



                                                                       Restoration Of Fish Access To Wetlands
                                                                           Impounded For Mosquito Control

                                                   NMFS is a member of Florida's Subcommittee on Managed Marshes, a component of the
                                                   Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control. The Subcommittee is restoring fisheries habitat
                                                   in wetlands that have been impounded for mosquito control. The positive effects of this
                                                   restoration are naturally reducing salt marsh mosquito production (e.g., fish predation of
                                                   mosquito larvae); reducing the use of insecticides that harm fish and crustaceans; and
                                                   increasing fish production by restoring access and tidal exchange to wetlands that have been
                                                   isolated for many years.



                                                                                             .,y
                                                                                 "K










                     Figure 16. Typical mosquito
                     control project-ditching to                                          I
                     reduce mosquito production.










                                                                                                                                              37










           PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                            The actions of this Subcommittee over the years have returned thousands of acres of wetlands
                                         to production. Recent examples include the rehabilitation of disturbed wetlands at Canaveral
                                         National Seashore in Volusia County near the Indian River and Merritt Island.

                                            At Cape Canaveral, over 14 miles of new water courses will be established using a rotary
                                         ditcher. This technology creates shallow water areas with minimal environmental impact from
                                         disposal of dredged material. Several dikes also would be breached to allow tidal exchange and
                                         access by living marine resources. When completed, the total work will restore productivity to
                                         about 1,600 acres of coastal wetlands.


                                            About 595 acres of coastal impoundments near the Indian River have been beneficially
                                         modified by adding culverts with water control structures and electric pumps. Through the
                                         Subcommittee's actions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Merritt
                                         Island National Wildlife Refuge in Brevard County also is restoring approximately 1,042 acres
                                         of marsh that was impounded in the 1960's for mosquito control.

                                                                                  LOUISIANA

                                                                         Coastal Wetland Planning
                                                               Protection And Restoration Act Activities


                                         This Act of 1990 establishes a Task Force composed of representatives of the EPA, DOC
                                         (NOAA), DOI, USDA, and the State of Louisiana. The Task Force prepared and transmitted to
                                         Congress an annual priority list of wetland restoration projects for the State of Louisiana. It also
                                         required a comprehensive Coastal Restoration Plan for Louisiana by the end of 1993 which would
                                         provide the basis for selecting future priority projects lists.

                                            The State of Louisiana is required by the Act to prepare a Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan
                                         which specifies how the State will develop and implement the Coastal Restoration Plan, achieving
                                         no-net-loss of wetlands from future development.

                                            Project planning and implementation is supported by a tax on small engines and equipment.
                                         The Act requires the State of Louisiana to provide 25% of the cost of restoration projects.
                                         Louisiana has established a Restoration Fund to meet this requirement which is administered by
                                         -the COE. Of the amount appropriated, 70% (not to exceed $70 million annually) is to be available
                                         for wetland restoration projects and associated activities (about $35 million was available in
                                         1992).


                                            The Act also created a 50%-matching-fund grants program administered by the USFWS to
                                         encourage other coastal states to implement coastal wetland conservation projects. The process
                                         of selecting wetland restoration project proposals has begun. The Task Force selected 14 projects
                                         for its Priority List for 1992 and 15 were selected for 1993. Public input was sought during this
                                         selection process. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of the technical (scientific) merit, cost-
                                         effectiveness, and wetland quality. Implementation of additional projects will be considered
                                         annually.

                                            Federal agencies on the Task Force can serve as sponsors for restoration projects. NMFS
                                         sponsored five of the projects selected for 1992 and 1993. The cost of these combined projects
                                         is about $7 million. These projects will be cooperatively implemented with the State.




           38










                    PROGRAM
                    ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                                           Coastal Marsh Management Projects Affecting Fishery Resources


                                                      Since the mid 1980s, NMFS has recommended that an environmental impact statement be
                                                      prepared by the COE to address individual and cumulative impacts of marsh management in
                                                      coastal Louisiana. NMFS believes that a comprehensive environmental analysis was needed
                                                      because of substantial public controversy surrounding this issue, the known adverse impacts
                                                      to living marine resources, and the uncertainty of impacts to coastal wetland habitats.


                                                         Marsh management basically involves the alteration of marsh hydrology and impounding
                                                      or semi-impounding wetlands to enhance waterfowl and furbearer production and to maintain
                                                      marshes that are subsiding, eroding, or otherwise deteriorating. Fisheries resources are often
                                                      adversely impacted by access restrictions and commercial and recreational fisheries may be
                                                      further stressed. The economic consequences related to losses of fishery resources are not
                                                      known but are expected to be considerable. For example, fisheries losses associated with one
                                                      recently proposed 3,160-acre impoundment were estimated to exceed $673,900 in annual
                                                      fisheries benefits.


                                                         Over the last decade, the COE has authorized the impounding and hydrological manipulation
                                                      of more than 380,000 acres of marshlands in Louisiana. NMFS estimates that 71 marsh
                                                      managementprojects impacting over 500,000 acres ofcoastal marsh and shallow waterbottoms
                                                      have been advertised for public comment from 1982 through 1992. Of this area, permits
                                                      authorizing various forms of structural marsh management activities impacting over 400,000
                                                      acresof estuarine fishery habitat have been issued. Notwithstanding the potential environmental
                                                      impacts, the cumulative effects of these actions have not been adequately addressed nor has
                                                      the need of this activity been established.

                                                         NMFS is concerned that many more marsh management projects will be proposed and
                                                      implemented in the future. For instance, the Louisiana Coastal Wetland Conservation and
                                                      Restoration Plan for 1990-92 contains at least 26 projects that could be categorized as marsh
                                                      management. These would affect about 200,000 acres of wetlands. The Soil Conservation
                                                      Service's Calcasieu-Sabine River Basin Study recommends construction of dozens of water
                                                      control structures that, if implemented, would result in the active or passive management of
                                                      all wetlands between Calcasieu and Sabine Lakes.


                                                         NMFS is pursuing a moratorium on marsh management projects pending completion of
                                                      a comprehensive assessment of this category of wetland alteration. This issue has been raised
                                                      to the Department of the Army under procedures established under the Clean Water Act.
                                                      Efforts geared to resolving NMFS' concerns are expected to continue for many years.


                                                                       Wetland Impoundment To Enhance Waterfowl
                                                                       And Furbearer Production in Terrebonne Parish


                                                      NMFS'efforts successfully prevented the impoundment of more than 3,160 acres of wetlands
                                                      in Louisiana when an applicant withdrew a COE permit request because of the opposition.
                                                      NMFS estimated that about $250,000 in annual fisheries benefits would have been lost had the
                                                      project been authorized and built.





                                                                                                                                                    39










           PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                              The project site was on the southwestern portion of Point au Fer, a coastal barrier island
                                          approximately 28 miles southwest of Morgan City, Louisiana, in Terrebonne Parish. The
                                          applicantplanned to place 3,160 acres ofpredominately brackish marsh under levee management-
                                          for the purpose of reducing wetland erosion and enhancing waterfowl use at the site. Plans
                                          included refurbishing existing natural and man-made levee segments with dredged material;
                                          constructing new levees; installing and maintaining 12 fixed and variable-crest water control
                                          structures and two earthen plugs; repairing five existing fixed-crest weirs and one earthen plug;
                                          and regulating surface water exchanges within and into the impounded areas.

                                              The project sponsors issued claims that the desired action would enable improved "management"
                                          of the marsh, abatement of erosion and improved waterfowl and furbearer production. NMFS'
                                          concerns centered on the proposal's adverse consequences to fishery resources (e.g., severe
                                          restriction of access). Additional NMFS concerns were raised due to the experimental nature of
                                          the project. Marsh management has not been demonstrated to prevent wetland deterioration.
                                          Further, there is evidence that the marsh is being maintained or augmented. The project site lies
                                          within the Atchafalaya River System, one of the few areas in Louisiana with a suitable sediment
                                          source for marsh building and maintenance.


                                              Additional issues focused on cumulative effects on fisheries resources that use the Point au Fer
                                          area. These include Atlantic croaker, red drum, sand seatrout, spotted seatrout, southern flounder,
                                          gulf menhaden, spot, striped mullet, brown shrimp, white shrimp, and blue crab. It is also believed
                                          that the endangered Kemps ridley sea turtle uses watercourses in the project area and feeds on blue
                                          crabs that are produced there.

                                                                                NORTH CAROLINA


                                                                            Coastal Marsh Created On
                                                                       Artificial Island In Roanoke Sound


                                          NMFS cooperated with the COE to create regularly and irregularly flooded coastal marsh in
                                          Roanoke Sound, Dare County, North Carolina. The work was accomplished under a memorandum
                                          of agreement to restore and create fish habitat. Fringing wetlands comprised of smooth cordgrass
                                          and black needlerush were planted along the edges of an artificial island created by disposal of
                                          material dredged during maintenance of an adjacent navigation channel.

                                              The project, which is expected to extend over a 5-year period, utilizes NMFS biologists as
                                          technical advisors for the marsh planting. NMFS also assisted in logistical support and in the
                                          collection of plant materials used in the planting effort. The newly created marsh is monitored by
                                          NMFS biologists and the information obtained is used to establish priorities for subsequent
                                          plantings.

                                              The project's benefits are numerous. The newly created marsh stabilized the island's shoreline
                                          and reduced the amount of dredged material that might otherwise reenter the navigation channel.
                                          With growth, the newly created wetlands are expected to produce plant materials for estuarine food
                                          cbai ns and provide cover and feeding sites forfisb and invertebrates. This should result in an increase
                                          of the production of local fisheries species such as summer flounder, bluefish, Atlantic croaker, spot,
                                          shrimp, and blue crab.






           40










                      PROGRAM
                      ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                           The project has also provided a convenient training site for students and instructors taking the
                                                         Wetland Development and Restoration Training Course at the nearby Corps Coastal Research
                                                         Facility located at Duck. In 1992, students and instructors planted approximately 300 linear feet
                                                         of fringing marsh.


                                                                                       Oregon Inlet Jetties Project

                                                         Oregon Inlet, located near Cape Hatteras on North Carolina's Outer Banks, is one of three tidal
                                                         passes connecting Pamlico Sound to the Atlantic Ocean. Stabilization of the inlet, using
                                                         parallel jetties extending approximately 4,500 feet into the Atlantic Ocean, has been approved
                                                         by Congress. Project construction, however, cannot proceed until environmental issues
                                                         involving jetty-related effects have been resolved. NMFS is active in efforts to ensure that
                                                         adverse impacts to living marine resources are understood and avoided.

                                                           Pamlico Sound is the Nation's third largest estuary and supports productive commercial and
                                                         recreational fisheries. Over 90% of the commercially important marine fish landed in North
                                                         Carolina are dependent on estuarine waters during some stage of their life history. Of these
                                                         species, a large portion spawn offshore and then, as larvae and juveniles, must negotiate coastal
                                                         inlets to reach estuarine sites where growth and development occurs. Recent findings by NMFS'
                                                         Southeast Fisheries Center and North Carolina State University researchers indicate that the
                                                         jetties could hamper sub-adult fish ingress into the sound by modifying local currents. Since
                                                         recruitment reductions of as much as 60% may be possible, NMFS has informed the COE, the
                                                         lead Federal agency for constructing the project, of this potential impact and of the need for
                                                         further evaluation in connection with the Federal environmental review process.


                                                                                   SOUTH CAROLINAIGEORGIA


                                                              Restoration Of Anadromous Fish Habitat In The Savannah River


                                                         In 1977, COE initiated work to improve navigation in Savannah Harbor. A key project feature
                                                         was the construction of a fide gate across the Back River, an arm of the Savannah River. The
                                                         purpose of this feature was to reduce shoaling in navigable portions of the Savannah River. This
                                                         would be accomplished by diverting water flows from the Back River through a newly dredged
                                                         channel called New Cut to the Harbor area of the Savannah River. It was believed that the
                                                         subsequent increased water flows in the area of Savannah Harbor would decrease the need for
                                                         maintenance dredging.

                                                            The tide gate was subsequently built and the water diversion features were implemented.
                                                         After project implementation, it became clear that the tide gate had severely modified
                                                         environmental conditions in the Back River as well as the areas influenced by its waters. For
                                                         example, freshwater habitats became saltier and water velocity subsided. These changes
                                                         produced many adverse environmental consequences of which two are notable. First, water
                                                         quality and habitat conditions were modified, which resulted in adverse effects on anadromous
                                                         fish under NMFS purview. Waters became too salty to be used as spawning habitat and
                                                         dissolved oxygen levels were too low for survival of striped bass eggs and young. The reduced
                                                         flows also caused fish eggs to drop from the water column to the river's floor where they died.
                                                         The second major adverse project effect was severe damage to wetlands at the Savannah River
                                                         National Wildlife Refuge. Saltier water was causing freshwater marshes to die or to be
                                                         replaced by more salt-tolerant plants. These changes were damaging waterfowl and other
                                                         species that the refuge was originally established to protect.
                                                                                                                                                          41










          PROGRAM
         ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                            A coalition of resource agencies including NMFS, USFWS, and the States of Georgia and
                                         South Carolina apprised COE of the severe adverse impact of its project and recommended
                                         reversal of the environmental changes caused by the tide gate and the New Cut diversion. Many
                                         years of consultation and comprehensive studies eventually convinced COE of the need to
                                         modify its operations. This resulted in permanent deactivation of the Back River tide gate
                                         operation and blocking of New Cut. The completed project is expected to meet navigation needs
                                         and protect striped bass. It is anticipated that the Savannah River National Wildlife Refuge will
                                         revert to conditions that existed before the tide gate operations began.

                                                                                      TEXAS

                                                                 Galveston Bay Area Navigation Project

                                         This project, as originally proposed, entailed widening and deepening the Houston and Galveston
                                         Ship Channels for a total distance of more than 90 miles. The project purpose was to reduce
                                         delays in shipping, increase safety, and allow deeper draft more efficient vessels to use the
                                         channel. The project's cost was expected to exceed $500 million and involve dredging and
                                         disposal of about 100 million cubic yards of silt and clay. NMFS'primary concerns related to that
                                         portion of Galveston Bay that would have been adversely affected by dredging (1,000 acres) and
                                         disposal (over 12,000 acres); potential effects of hydrological changes within the Bay; and
                                         modification of habitat used by fisheries resources such as oysters and shrimp.

                                           By including Galveston Bay in the National Estuary Program, the U.S. Congress has
                                         recognized its national and local value as a habitat and harvest area for fish and shellfish. The Bay
                                         yields an abundance of fish and shellfish and is the most popular marine recreational fishing
                                         location in Texas. Commercial fish and shellfish caught or nurtured in Galveston Bay were valued
                                         at over $26 million to fishermen in 1986. Recreational fishing expenditures in the vicinity of
                                         Galveston Bay during 1986 exceeded $171 million.




                                         MAIN TURNING      CLINTON
                                           BA SIN          ISLAND
                                                                                                                               -g7
                                               Oti
                                             it                     BOGGY
                                                                    BA YOU
                                               BRADY         GARBOURS CUT
                                              ISLAND
                                                              IAORGAN*S POINT
                                                                   BAYPORT





           Figure 17. Drawing of
           proposed dredging of
                                                                                                           V
           Houston and Galveston
           ship channels.

                                                                           TEXAS CITY


                                                                         S TEXAS CITY                   4#k'
                                                                          HIP CHANNEL





         42










                    PROGRAM
                    ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                                          NMFS, in association with other agencies, requestedCOEto furtherreview the environmental
                                                      impacts of the proposed project. Theprocess of seekingproject authorization was subsequently
                                                      suspended until all significant adverse effects have been minimized and studies that more
                                                      adequately assess potential environmental impacts have been completed.

                                                          Following extensive negotiations, COE elected to perform seven supplemental investigations
                                                      and the Port of Houston agreed to fund efforts that would ensure beneficial disposal of the
                                                      dredged material. NMFS is assisting in the development of plans for beneficial use of the
                                                      dredged material in Galveston Bay ranging from marsh creation to construction of islands for
                                                      bird use. Of these, five have been recommended for inclusion in the overall beneficial use plan.

                                                          In addition to identifying beneficial uses of dredged material, NMFS and NOAA are
                                                      providing technical assistance on 3-D hydrodynamic/oyster and salinity models of the bay.
                                                      The salinity models are being developed by COE's Waterways Experiment Station and the
                                                      hydrodynamic/oyster model is being developed by Texas A&M University. The models will
                                                      be used in feasibility and impact assessment in conjunction with planned beneficial disposal
                                                      techniques. NMFS efforts and involvement with this significant Federal project are projected
                                                      to continue into the next century.




                                                                                          TEXASILOUISIANA


                                                                           Protection Of Flower Garden Coral Banks


                                                      The Flower Garden Coral Banks, located about 110 miles off the Texas coast, have been noted
                                                      by the NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division as "unique among the banks of the
                                                      northwestern Gulf of Mexico in that they bear the northernmost tropical Atlantic coral reefs
                                                      on the continental shelf and support the mosthighly developed offshore hard-bank communities
                                                      in the region." Additionally, the Flower Gardens have been designated under the Magnuson
                                                      Fishery Conservation and Management Act as Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. The
                                                      site is also pending designation as a National Marine Sanctuary.


                                                          In June 1991, NMFS learned that a major oil company planned to place an oil pipeline
                                                      between the East and West Flower Garden coral banks. The proposed pipeline route would
                                                      have passed about a mile south of the East Flower Garden Bank, turn north between both banks,
                                                      and traverse ten fault scaTs. NMFS was concerned with this proposal because of the ecological
                                                      importance of the Flower Gardens and the potential for direct and indirect adverse impacts
                                                      resulting from the pipeline. Physical disruption of habitat was possible with the proposed
                                                      pipeline alignment as well as the potential for spills associated with pipeline failure. Geological
                                                      fault lines were to be crossed. There was also considerable concern that the project would be
                                                      precedent-setting and lead to a proliferation of similar activities.

                                                          Because of NMFS'involvement and coordination with the National Ocean Service and the
                                                      Minerals Management Service (thepermitting agency fortheproject), an acceptable alternative
                                                      to proposed alignment was negotiated. This negotiated alignment routed the pipeline and all
                                                      future pipelines to the north and west of the Flower Gardens, The pipeline was subsequently
                                                      installed along the new alignment and was built with improved shutdown and monitoring
                                                      provisions. The integrity of the Flower Gardens was preserved and potential future problems
                                                      were avoided.




                                                                                                                                                        43










          PROGRAM
          ACCOMPLISHMENTS

                                                                     VIRGINIA I NORTH CAROLINA


                                                                Lake Gaston Freshwater Supply Project

                                         Since the 1970s, NMFS has been involved in a proposal by the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
                                         for approval to withdraw 60 million gallons of water per day from Lake Gaston on the North
                                         Carolina-Virginia border. The lake is a reservoir and component of the Roanoke River System.
                                         The Roanoke River flows through an extensive floodplain of national significance and forms the
                                         major tributary of Albemarle Sound. Albemarle Sound was designated as one of the first national
                                         estuary programs by the EPA. The Roanoke River's wetlands are considered to be the largest
                                         intact, and least disturbed, bottomland forest ecosystem remaining in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
                                         The diverse habitats of the system support a rich array of wildlife and fish species. Surface waters
                                         of the river currently are used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes and for
                                         maintaining habitats for wildlife and fish species.

                                            The City of Virginia Beach has proposed construction of an 85-mile-long pipeline that would
                                         supply its water needs from Lake Gaston. The City has apparently exceeded current water supply
                                         capacities. The State of North Carolina strongly objects to the consumptive use of its waters by
                                         the City of Virginia Beach. The City, on the other hand, has committed millions of dollars tothe
                                         pipeline project and claims to face considerable economic hardship because insufficient water
                                         exists to support growth.


                                            Because water is already severely partitioned within the Roanoke River system, NMFS has
                                         been concerned with the cumulative effect of continued water withdrawals on already stressed
                                         estuarine and anadromous fisheries resources such as striped bass. NMFS maintains that
                                         knowledge concerning relationships between river flow and fishery production, cumulative
                                         effects of continued water withdrawals, and effects of flow modifications on resources in the
                                         Albemarle Sound is insufficient. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that continued individual and
                                         cumulative consumptive water withdrawals would not have adverse environmental consequences.
                                         NMFS has recommended to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal agency
                                         responsible for approving the permit modification, that additional studies and environmental
                                         documentation be done to help determine and describe the environmental impact of the City's
                                         proposal.

                                         D. Southwest Region

                                         The Southwest Region with its office in Long Beach, California has relatively little natural
                                         estuarine habitat left to conserve. Consequently, it focuses on protecting and enhancing the
                                         remaining coastal wetlands, anadromous fish habitats, reef environments, and several offshore
                                         fisheries. The Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in La Jolla, California conducts
                                         habitat studies that include research on the wetland dependency of coastal marine fish, fishing
                                         activities, and natural events on the offshore and coastal fisheries of the region. Marine mammal
                                         research is also a key element of its program.









           44










                    PROGRAM
                    ACCOMPLISHMENTS

                                                                                        REGION WIDE

                                                              Regional Hazardous Material Spill Contingency Planning

                                                  Throughout 1992 and 1993, Regional habitat conservation staff participated in a series of Area
                                                  Contingency Planning meetings dealing with hazardous material spill issues relative to regional
                                                  (California and Hawaii) fish and wildlife habitat issues. The result was the development of maps
                                                  of California (county-by-county) and the western Pacific (Hawaii) reflecting the different
                                                  sensitivity of various habitats to hazardous material spills. These maps are designed for the use
                                                  of the Coast Guard Regional Response Team On-scene Coordinators during hazardous
                                                  materials spill situations. This effort involved NMFS cooperation with the Coast Guard, State
                                                  and Federal resource agencies, and State Offices of Oil Spill Prevention and Response.

                                                     As aresultof NMFS'participation in the Hawaiian planning process, the habitat conservation
                                                  staff received a Certificate of Merit from the Admiral, Fourteenth Coast Guard District.

                                                                                         CALIFORNIA

                                                                          Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project

                                                  The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) was organized after the Bay was included
                                                  in the National Estuary Program and a 1988 management conference made all interested parties
                                                  aware of the Bay's problems and potential solutions. Currently NMFS serves on the Management
                                                  Committee, the Technical Committee, and co-chairs the Marine Habitat Subcommittee for the
                                                  SMBRP. These committees function as the focal point for the development of solutions for
                                                  problems relative to the affected natural resources and are coordinating mechanisms for all the
                                                  agencies having management responsibilities relating to the Bay. Working together with the
                                                  other committees, a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) was to be
                                                  produced by late 1993.

                                                     The late 1993 completion date for the CCMP was accelerated to mid 1993 in order to take
                                                  advantage of a proposed 1994 State bond measure that could provide funding for the
                                                  implementation of the plan. Draft elements of the plan were presented to the Management
                                                  Committee during the latter part of 1992.

                                                                   San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)
                                                                                     Mitigation Activities

                                                  In 1974, when the California Coastal Commission (CCC) reviewed the application by Southern
                                                  California Edison for expansion of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), there
                                                  was little information available on the potential impacts on the marine environment of nuclear
                                                  generation plants. As a consequence, a Marine Review Committee (MRC) was established to
                                                  develop and conduct a comprehensive field study of the impacts associated with the operation
                                                  of the new units.


                                                     The final report of the MRC, completed in 1989, concluded that significant adverse effects
                                                  were associated with the operation of SONGS. Those identified impacts included a substantial
                                                  reduction in standing stock of several fish populations in the southern California Bight and
                                                  adverse impacts to the kelp community of the nearby San Onofte kelp bed. The MRC also
                                                  concluded that proposed changes in operation of the cooling system would create further
                                                  environmental impacts and were not cost-effective.



                                                                                                                                                  45










         PROGRAM
         ACCOMPLISHMENTS










           Figure 18. Aerial view of
           San Onofre Nuclear
           Generation Station.
                                            A@
                                                                           4Vr






                                                                                                     A,
                                                                                                                            all

                                          NMFS is now providing direct input along with Federal and State resource and regulatory
                                       entities for the design and implementation of an overall mitigation package. To mitigate existing
                                       and future environmental impacts from these new units, CCC approved a plan which included the
                                       requirement for the restoration of 150 acres of wetlands and construction of a 300-acre artificial
                                       reef with kelp.


                                                     Experimental Eelgrass Transplant in San Diego Bay

                                       The Le Meridien property eelgrass transplant project, utilizing a new NMFS technique for the
                                       construction of an eelgrass transplant site, was completed during 1990. The experiment was to
                                       transform a deep-water area to a depth suitable for the establishment of eelgrass. To accomplish
                                       this objective, a 180-foot-long submerged rock dike was constructed in water approximately - 10
                                       to - 12 feetdeep (MLLW) at a site near the Coronado Bridge in San Diego Bay. Sand fill was placed
                                       behind the structure to establish a planting elevation of -5 to -7 feet deep (MLLW.)


                                          Fish monitoring at the site has suggested that this technique offers considerable potential for
                                       the enhancement of fishery resources. The inclusion of new rock habitat has resulted in the
                                       establishment of several fish species typically found in open coast reef communities. Diver
                                       observations indicate that these species apparently are taking advantage of the rich food resource
                                       found in the adjacent eelgrass bed. Further study could prove this experimental transplant
                                       technology to be a viable fishery habitat mitigation option.


                                          Since clean sand was used as the fill material, experiments utilizing nitrogen-enriched
                                       fertilizers to enhance growth rates were conducted. The preliminary results of this work indicated
                                       little effect.


                                          This transplant and other eelgrass vegetated areas of San Diego Bay experienced severe winter
                                       die-back in the later part of 1992. Monitoring will provide information regarding whether this die-
                                       back is related to seasonal factors or is more long-term.

                                                        Bay Farm Island Borrow Pit in San Francisco Bay

                                       Bay Farm Island was created several years ago by "borrowing" material dredged from San
                                       Francisco Bay. Approximately 20 million cubic yards were removed, leaving a 480-acre pit
                                       approximately 30 feet deep. The Corps became interested in examining the pit as a potential

         46










                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                 disposal site for dredged material, especially contaminated material. They began preliminary
                                                 biological work in the fall of 1989. Multiple attempts to get COE interested injointly examining
                                                 the site as a NOAA/COE MOA fishery enhancement project failed. NMFS is interested in
                                                 restoring eelgrass habitat over the pit once it is filled and capped. The pit probably has a 15
                                                 million cubic yard capacity. It would provide an alternative to disposal at Alcatraz and would
                                                 serve as a suitable disposal site until EPA formally designates an offshore deepwater dredge spoil
                                                 disposal site.


                                                     The Port of Oakland and COE are seriously considering the borrow pit as an alternative
                                                 disposal site for the Oakland Harbor deepening project. It is still unclear whether they are
                                                 considering it as a one-time confined aquatic disposal site (CAD) and would then cap it for
                                                 restoration. Another option which may be looked at is a multi-user CAD site for use over several
                                                 years.

                                                    The COE has also contracted a study to determine the utilization of the pit itself. They have
                                                 been looking at sea bottom fauna and fish utilization of the water column and they have been
                                                 using gillnets set at various depths to determine fish species present. COE will trawl the pit in
                                                 1993 to check the set-net data.



                                                                           Gravel Mining in Coastal Streams

                                                 NMFS continued its efforts to improve the management of gravel mining in coastal streams.
                                                 Gravel mining removes spawning gravels and alters the fluvial geomorphology of rivers, often
                                                 resulting in the degradation of anadromous spawning and rearing habitat. River areas with
                                                 extensive gravel mining typically become severely braided and shallow with little or no rearing
                                                 habitat. A Regional NMFS Gravel Management Policy was adopted in January 1991 to provide
                                                 guidance and consistency in project reviews.



                                                                                                                           5
                                                                     "AV










                      Figure 19. Aerial view of
                      gravel mining site in the
                      Mad River in California.





                                                                                                                             W@








                                                                                                                                                  47










           PROGRAM
            ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                               In California, gravel mining is managed by county government. Therefore, NMFS has been
                                            providing comments as a trustee agency for salmonids through the county permitting process
                                            in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Sonoma counties. Principal rivers in these counties
                                            include the Smith, Klamath, Trinity, Eel, Mad, Garcia, Gualala, and Russian Rivers. In cases
                                            where a COE permit is also required, NMFS provides comments through the COE process.

                                               Largely due to the efforts of NMFS, the California Department of Fish and Game, and
                                            environmental groups, all four counties are now developing and/or refining Environmental
                                            Impact Reviews (EIR) that include comprehensive impact assessments and gravel mining
                                            management plans. Each plan gives careful consideration to the potential impacts of gravel
                                            mining to salmonids, and includes extensive environmental impact monitoring. NMFS will
                                            continue to work with the counties to ensure that gravel mining management provides adequate
                                            protection of anadromous resources.



                                                                      Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD)
                                                               on Sacramento River- Fish Passage Program

                                            The Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) was constructed in 1964 on the upper Sacramento
                                            River in the northern portion of California's Central Valley. RBDD is located 243 river miles
                                            above San Francisco Bay. Many investigators in the 1970's and early 1980's attributed much
                                            of the decline of anadromous fisheries in the upper Sacramento River to construction and
                                            operation of the RBDD. This resulted in the formulation of the RBDD Fish Passage Program
                                            in 1983 by the fisheries and water agencies.

                                               NMFS Southwest Region's Habitat staff has contributed extensively to the Fish Passage
                                            Program during the past ten years. They identified three major problems: 1) inadequate
                                            screeningof downstream migratingjuvenile salmonidfishes atthe intake to the Teharna-Colusa
                                            Canal; 2) substantial mortality on downstream migratingjuvenile salmonids thatremain in the
                                            river but are forced to pass under the RBDD gates; and 3) delay and blockage of upstream
                                            migrating spawning adult salmonids.

                                               NMFS Southwest and Northwest Regional staffs provided biological criteria and engineering
                                            specifications for fish screens to solve the fish passage problems. Consequently, a 600-foot
                                            long array of drum screens has been constructed to replace the existing louver fish screens
                                            which annually "leaked" an average of 500,000 juvenile salmon into the Tehama Colusa
                                            Canal. The new screen system, the largest facility of its kind, should especially improve
                                            passage of winter-run fry.

                                               NMFS will continue to work with the operators to ensure that the system is operated
                                            effectively in the wide variety of flow conditions that the project experiences. Full evaluation
                                            will probably be delayed until irrigation season due to low diversion flows during drought.

                                               Addressing and correcting the remaining fish passage problems at RBDD have been
                                            assigned to a group called the Planning Coordination Team on which NMFS staff has played
                                            a critical role. The Team developed a list of alternatives which include variously-sized, new
                                            left-bank fish ladders, a permanent mid-dam ladder and modifications to the right ladder.
                                            These alternatives are now being reviewed in an appraisal-level study to determine the
                                            preferred alternative.



          48










                    PROGRAM
                    ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                     An alternative that is very attractive to NMFS and other fisheries agencies employs a bank of
                                                 Archimedes screws to pump water into the Tehama-Colusa Canal headworks rather than using
                                                 the RBDD to divert the river by gravity. This would allow the dam gates to be raised out of the
                                                 river year-round resulting in virtually unimpeded upstream and downstream fish passage. This
                                                 is the only alternative under consideration that remedies the combined impacts of delay and
                                                 blockage of upstream migrating adult fish and the estimated 50% mortality of downstream
                                                 juvenile migrants which pass under the dam gates. However, there is significant opposition to this
                                                 alternative due to the costs of pumping being passed on to the water users.

                                                     In 1992, the Bureau of Reclamation allocated money for a 500-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs)
                                                 pilot, archimedes screw pumping plant to begin research to:


                                                     I .   Identify the feasibility and potential problems of using either an archimedes screw pump
                                                 and/or a helical pump in anticipation of a full-scale design of a pumping plant at RBDD,

                                                     2.    Determine if the plant could provide low-volume, winter-time water deliveries while the
                                                 RBDD gates are raised.

                                                     The Bureau began with an ambitious schedule of construction from spring through fall of 1993.
                                                 Potential hydraulic problems were identified during the summer. NMFS and the other agencies
                                                 recommended a more methodical approach to the problems identified including physical model-
                                                 testing. The Bureau decided to proceed, however; they did agree to field verification of flows in
                                                 the fall. The fall flows confirmed the hydraulic problems and, in late December, an emergency
                                                 design review recommended that the project be modified and model tested. This delayed the
                                                 project by a year. NMFS will be heavily involved in the redesign, model testing, and further
                                                 developing of testing procedures for the experimental plant.



                                                                      _V/

                       Figure 20. One drum
                       screen fish passage
                       device being placed at
                       Red Bluff Diversion Dam
                       (RBDD).
























                                                                                                                                                  49










          PROGRAM
          ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID)
                                                                             on Sacramento River


                                          The GCID pumping operation is the largest and oldest on the Sacramento River and is believed
                                          to be the largest source ofjuvenile salmon mortality on the river below the RBDD. The existing
                                          fish screens have never worked properly and do not meet the current fish screen criteria of
                                          NMFS and California Department of Fish and Game. In addition, recent changes in the
                                          Sacramento River stream bed have altered the hydrology of the fish screen bypass so that at
                                          lower river flows the channel leading from the screens back to the river can become a dead-
                                          end "predation sink."

                                             In late 1989, GCID's consultant with the close cooperation of the fishery agencies,
                                          completed a preliminary assessment of alternative fish screen sites and designs. NMFS, other
                                          fishery agencies, and fishery conservation groups met often to discuss implementation of the
                                          preferred alternative and to adopt interim measures to reduce fishery problems at the screening
                                          facility.











              Figure 21. A series of
              drum screens in position.











                                             In 1991, GCID applied for a permit to dredge the oxbow at its pumping site. So, under
                                          Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), COE entered formal consultation with NMFS
                                          regarding potential impacts of the dredge permit application on winter-run chinook salmon.
                                          NMFS concluded the operation of the diversion was likely tojeopardize the continued existence
                                          of winter-run chinook salmon and the construction of an alternative was proposed. GCID failed
                                          to accept the alternative offered by NMFS and did not apply for authorization under Section 10
                                          of the ESA to "take" winter-run at its pumping station. As a result, COE denied GCID's
                                          application to dredge.

                                             NMFS also sought injunctive relief in Federal Court under Section 9 of the ESA to curtail
                                          the "taking" of juvenile winter-run at GCID's facility. A Preliminary Injunction was issued
                                          limiting GCID pumping to a level that would improve protection for winter-run fry and
                                          juveniles. NMFS returned to Federal Court seeking a permanent injunction against GCID until
                                          it complies with the ESA. The Permanent Injunction was granted.


          50










                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                                    In February and March 1993, GCID, NMFS and CDFG staff met to forge a Stipulated
                                                  Agreement which would allow reduced pumping by GCID until the design and construction of
                                                  the new screen facilities were completed. In addition to reduced pumping, GCID was also
                                                  obligated to improve hydraulic conditions for fish passage in the pumping plant intake and bypass
                                                  channels. These improvements will provide considerable improvement in juvenile survival until
                                                  the new screen can be put in place.


                                                     During the spring, a contractor was selected to complete the conceptual design and
                                                  Environmental Impact Review. This contract is scheduled to be completed in 1994. NMFS staff
                                                  will continue to participate in reviews of the progress of this contract.


                                                                             Central Valley Project Reform Act
                                                                              (Miller-Bradley Bill P.L. 102-575)

                                                  Over the years, it became evident that the Central Valley Project (CVP) was no longer serving the
                                                  best economic interests of California. After an extensive drought, many recognized that one of the
                                                  least expensive and least environmentally damaging sources of drought control would be for CVP
                                                  farmers to conserve water or to fallow fields and voluntarily sell the saved water. Unfortunately,
                                                                                      Federal law forbade CVP water from being used outside the
                                                                                      CVP Service Area which excluded most of the Bay Area and
                                                                                      Southern California.


                                                                                         On October 30, 1992, President Bush signed Public Law
                                                                                      575 beginning a new era in Federal water policy. Title 34 of
                                                                                      this bill is the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the
                                                                                      most significant step ever taken toward the reform of the water
                                                                                      project which has been perhaps the single greatest
                                                                                      environmental disaster in the history of California.


                                                                                         NMFS Habitat Conservation Division staffreviewed several
                                                                                      modifications ofthe bill and also presented supporting testimony
                                                                                      before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in
                                                                                      Washington, D.C.


                                                                                         The new law, known as Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, has
                                                                                      the following among its provisions:


                                                                                                                                                -equal
                                                                                               Establishes fish and wildlife protection as a"co
                                                                                               projec purpose
                                                                                                      t          of the CVP.


                                                                                               Dedicates 800,000 acre feet(af) of water annually to
                                                                                               fish and wildlife.

                                                                                               Requires the construction of   hardware fixes" such
                                                                                               as for improved fish screens at GCID, spawning
                                                                                               gravel replenishment, and a temperature control
                                                                                               device at Shasta Dam.
                                        oc-



                          Figure 22. Salmon moving through a fishway to
                          spawning grounds.


                                                                                                                                                    51










           PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                                      Establishes a $50 million fish and wildlife restoration fund to help pay for "hardware
                                                      fixes" and purchase additional water for fish and wildlife.

                                                      Makes permanent a temporary order providing at least 340,000 af annually for the
                                                      Trinity River.

                                                      Guarantees wildlife refuges an adequate supply of water.

                                                      Requires the preparation and implementation of a plan to double Central Valley
                                                      anadromous fisheries stocks by 2002. When this Plan is submitted to the Secretary
                                                      of Interior in 1995, even more water than the 800,000 af may be directed to fisheries
                                                      restoration.


                                                      Requires the preparation of a study regarding the feasibility of restoring flows in the
                                                      Upper San Joaquin River.

                                                      Precludes new water contracts until fish and wildlife obligations have been met.

                                                      Allows CVP growers to sell conserved water on the open market anywhere within
                                                      California with limited regulation from agricultural water districts.

                                               The Bureau of Reclamation and USFWS have been given Joint Lead in carrying out the
                                            provisions of the Bill. NMFS is a cooperating agency in the effort to pioduce the
                                            Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement required by October 1995. Further, NMFS
                                            is working cooperatively with the California Department of Fish and Game and FWS to
                                            establish the fish and wildlife water needs for allocation of the 800,000 af in 1993.



                                                                                       HAWAII


                                                      Hawaii Geothermal Project (HGP) Environmental Impact
                                                                                     Statement


                                            In August 199 1, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a Notice of Intent to prepare an
                                            EIS for the Hawaii Geothermal Project (HGP). NMFS was invited to be a cooperating agency
                                            in developing the EIS. Staff attended a meeting in San Francisco to discuss the project and
                                            to identify environmental issues and resources which they thought would be potentially
                                            impacted by the project. By the end of the year, NMFS had given tentative approval to
                                            participate as a cooperating agency in developing the EIS, primarily because of its mandated
                                            responsibilities concerning the inter-island submarine cable portion of the project.

                                               NMFS accepted the invitation from DOE to work as cooperating agency in developing an
                                            EIS for the HGP. An initial scoping meeting of cooperating agencies was held in late March
                                            in Honolulu. A series of ten public meetings was held throughout the State of Hawaii during
                                            the spring. A workshop to begin development of the EIS was held on July 16,1992. Staff were
                                            concerned that the working draft of the Implementation Plan was too general and did not
                                            identify many of the potential project impacts in the nearshore marine environment.






          52










                    PROGRAM
                    ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                                           MICRONESIA

                                                                            Survey of Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef

                                                     At the request of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), an expedition was organized
                                                     through the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) of the South Pacific
                                                     Commission and the East-West Center, University of Hawaii, to survey the marine resources
                                                     of two remote atolls in the Eastern Caroline Islands. The surveys were to inventory the marine
                                                     resources and habitats of Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef. These data were to be used in
                                                     establishing the sites as protected areas. Staff was requested to participate in the expedition
                                                     team.


                                                        Field work was carried out at Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef from November 28 to December
                                                     6, 1990. Staff was responsible for underwater surveys of reef fishes and their habitats, as well
                                                     as sea turtle abundance at the two atolls.


                                                        A paper entitled "Sea Turtle Survey at Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef 'was prepared by staff.
                                                     After outside review, the paper was submitted to Marine Turtle Newsletter and was published
                                                     in the October 1991 (No. 55) edition. A paper entitled "Survey of Reef Fishes and Their
                                                     Habitats at Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef 'was finalized in December 199 1. Bothpaperswere
                                                     submitted to FSM and SPREP for inclusion in the final Expedition Report.



                                                                                      REPUBLIC of PALAU

                                                                          Resort Hotel and Marina at Ngesaol, Koror

                                                     In 1989, a developer proposed dredging and filling over 400 acres of mangrove, seagrass, and
                                                     coral reef habitat for a resort, golf course, and a marina at Ngesaol. Early scoping meetings
                                                     in which NMFS participated were successful in substantially reducing the scale of the project.

                                                        Despite the above scoping process, the applicant submitted a permit application to COE
                                                     proposing the destruction and alteration of 200 acres of nearshore fishery habitat for a resort
                                                     hotel and marina complex without the golf course. Habitat staff participated in a multi-agency
                                                     site survey in April 199 1. NMFS and other resource agencies recommended the permit be
                                                     denied. The Corps concurred and informed the applicant that a Federal EIS would be necessary
                                                     unless the applicant modified the project such that non-water dependent fills were avoided.

                                                        The applicant submitted a revised permit application for a substantially scaled-down
                                                     project but still requiring the loss of approximately 86 acres of mangrove, seagrass and coral
                                                     reef habitat. NMFS recommended denial of the revised permit and was supported again by the
                                                     other resource agencies. NMFS also informed the applicant that should all non-water
                                                     dependent fills be eliminated from the proposed project and compensatory mitigation
                                                     developed forunavoidable loss ofhabitat, NMFS would reconsiderits position ofreconimending
                                                     denial.


                                                        In August 1992, the applicant submitted a fourth revised project application further
                                                     reducing the project to 2.7 acres of fill and 13.5 acres of dredged channels. NMFS concurred
                                                     with the further downsizing but continued to recommend mitigation for the Section 404
                                                     activities. The COE agreed and the applicant is now developing a mitigation plan.


                                                                                                                                                    53










          PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                             E. Northwest Region

                                             The Northwest Region with its office in Seattle, Washington also has critical estuarine and
                                             riverine habitats to protect and faces significant development pressures. Like the Northeast,
                                             this Region manages long-established, economically important offshore and coastal fisheries.
                                             The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) in Seattle, Washington investigates the
                                             effects of hydroelectric power development, industrial development, and urban pollution on
                                             habitats and resources.



                                                                                   REGION WIDE

                                                        FERC Fishway Definition Out, New Definition Needed

                                             On May 8, 1991, FERC issued Order No. 533 which included a revised definition of
                                             "fishways" as only incorporating upstream passage facilities. FERC indicated that the new
                                             definition would not decrease their efforts to ensure safe downstream passage of fish in the
                                             licensing of hydroelectric projects. However, in all cases where FERC assumed such
                                             responsibility, anadromous fish runs have failed or been severely affected and the projects
                                             themselves are the subject of litigation or are undergoing extensive retrofitting to correct faulty
                                             or nonexistent fish passage facilities.

                                               NMFS requested a rehearing on the order, pointing out the substantial body of literature that
                                             discusses fishways as providing both upstream and downstream passage, and suggesting that
                                             the definition be expanded to include flows, temperature regimes, project operation scenarios,
                                             and other measures designed to enhance or promote fish passage. Due to this request, FERC
                                             reconsidered its definition of the term "fishway" and issued Order 533A which contained a new
                                             definition including downstream passage. However, the new definition applied to flows
                                             within the bypass only and required that passage at the project be necessary for the life cycle
                                             ofthe fish.


                                               The fishway definition dispute with FERC was rendered moot when Congress passed the
                                             Energy Policy Act of 1992, and rescinded FERC's fishway definition. The conference report
                                             on the Act suggested an opportunity existed to write a regulatory definition for fishways, so
                                             NMFS initiated discussions with the DOI to develop regulations for implementing authority
                                             to define fishways and to specify the process for implementing the fishway prescription
                                             provision of Section 18 of the Federal Power Act.


                                                                                        IDAHO


                                                    Salmon River Basin Proposed Hydroelectric Projects Rejected

                                             Historically, the Salmon River Basin, Idaho, supported major runs of chinook and sockeye
                                             salmon, and steelhead trout. Today, due largely to downstream hydropower development
                                             on the Snake and Columbia Rivers, anadromous fish production is greatly diminished.
                                             Nevertheless, even with the present depressed runs, the Salmon River is the mainstay of
                                             salmon and steelhead production in Idaho and continues to provide spawning habitat for more
                                             spring and summer chinook salmon than any other drainage in the Columbia River system.


          54










                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                     In the early 1980's, this production potential was threatened by unwarranted hydropower
                                                  development when FERC was presented with an unprecedented number of applications for
                                                  small hydroelectric project licenses. At one point, up to 80 hydropower proposals were before
                                                  FERC. Recognizing the potential risk these projects represented both individually and
                                                  cumulatively, NMFS became an active participant in the consultation process for these
                                                  projects.

                                                     In coordination with other Federal and State fish and wildlife and land management
                                                  agencies and Indian tribes, NMFS asserted that project proponents were obligated to develop
                                                  a complete and adequate record of potential project impacts to fishery resources and mitigation
                                                  of such impacts; that potential cumulative impacts arising from multiple project development
                                                  must be apart of this record; and that FERC's licensing actions must be consistent with regional
                                                  or state fishery enhancement programs.

                                                     In 199 1, based largely on the consultation record developed by NMFS and other resource
                                                  agencies, FERC began rejecting Salmon River Basin license applications. In 1992, the last
                                                  three applications before FERC for projects in the Salmon River Basin were rejected. Thus
                                                  NMFS, in assuming a lead role in the licensing and consultation process for these projects, was
                                                  instrumental in assuring protection of Salmon River Basin anadromous fishery resources.



                                                                                          OREGON

                                                                 Development of Wetland Evaluation Methodology

                                                  Recent Oregon State law provides for municipalities to develop wetland conservation plans
                                                  (WCP) to ensure preservation of high-value wetlands while directing development activities,
                                                  consistent with section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, to wetland areas of lesser value.
                                                  NMFS has been involved in the formulation of a number of WCPs. However, these activities
                                                  have pointed out the need for uniform guidelines in determining wetland functions and
                                                  establishing values for wetlands serving those functions.

                                                     In light of this need, NMFS has joined with the EPA, COE, the Oregon Department of Fish
                                                  and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Oregon Division of
                                                  State Lands to develop a wedand valuation method that will establish values for delineated
                                                  wetlands. When developed, implementation of this methodology will ensure preservation of
                                                  high-value wetland areas and will allow reasonable streamlining of the section 404/10
                                                  permitting process while ensuring compliance with Federal Clean Water Act requirements.


                                                                                       WASHINGTON

                                                          Restoration of Elwha River Ecosystem After Removing Dams

                                                  The construction of Elwha Dam in 1911 and Glines Canyon Dam in 1926 blocked anadromous
                                                  fish passage to over 60 miles of mainstream and tributary habitat of the Elwha River in Clallam
                                                  County, Washington. As a result, salmon and steelhead runs were decimated and the
                                                  ecosystem disrupted.




                                                                                                                                                  55










          PROGRAM
          ACCOMPLISHMENTS














             Figure 23. A typical
             hydroelectric dam.                                                                                 Ap


                                                                 Is








                                                                                                                                          'fflw




                                            FERC initiated licensing proceedings for the Elwha Project in 1968 and the Glines Canyon
                                         Project in 1975. FERC analyzed the alternatives of providing fish passage through the
                                         incorporation of passage facilities (e.g., ladders, fish screens) at the dams or dam removal.
                                         However, as a result of the lengthy and contentious FERC proceedings, the Elwha River
                                         Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495) was enacted in October 1992.
                                         This Act required that the Secretary of the Interior provide a Report to Congress by January 3 1,
                                         1994, detailing a dam removal plan that would result in the full restoration of the ecosystem and
                                         native anadromous fisheries. Although NMFS is in the Department of Commerce, NMFS was
                                         selected to serve in the coordinating role for the preparation of the Report because of its expertise
                                         and leadership role in the FERC arena.

                                             Investigations to date indicate that dam removal is feasible and would ultimately result in the
                                         restoration of the ecosystem and anadromous fish runs totalling about 250,000 fish per year.



                                                                     Downward Trend of Fish Returns
                                                             Reversed at Baker River Hydroelectric Project


                                         This project is a 111 mega-watt hydroelectric project owned and operated by Puget Sound Power
                                         and Light Company. It is located in Skagit County, Washington, on the Baker River which is a
                                         tributary to the Skagit River. Although the license for this project does not expire until the year
                                         2006, for the last several years NMFS has actively participated in an ad hoc project technical
                                         advisory committee along with the Puget Sound Power and Light Company, the Washington
                                         Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service. The
                                         committee was formed in the mid-eighties in response to plummeting returns of coho and sockeye
                                         salmon, and steelhead trout to the Baker River. The task of the committee is to obtain baseline
                                         information and develop and implement measures to reverse the downward trend in fish returns
                                         and, if possible, increase them to at least historic levels. Through a combination of improved



          56










                    PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                                                               F       J7-7-7,,17




                                                                                                             4




                        Figure 24. Salmon
                        leaping in rapids on their                                                                            @41
                        way upstream to spawn.












                                                     downstream juvenile passage, pen rearing, and construction of a new sockeye spawning area,
                                                     adult returns have increased dramatically. Coho salmon returns increased from 294 in 1984
                                                     to 7,400 in 1992. Sockeye salmon returns were at a historic low of 99 in 1985. In 1992, 2,443
                                                     returned and over 3,000 are expected back in 1993. Steelhead returns increased from a low of
                                                     38 in 1985 to over 900 for the 1992-1993 season. These restoration efforts and NMFS'
                                                     participation and support will continue.

                                                                                    Yellm Hydroelectric Project

                                                     The diversion dam for this project creates a stretch of bypass of about 12 miles. When water
                                                     is discharged back to the Nisqually River, fish are attracted to the tailrace discharge. Studies
                                                     conducted by NMFS and others have demonstrated that this "false attraction" can result in
                                                     significant delays for migrating adult salmon and steelhead. Also, fish can become injured as
                                                     they try and ascend the draft tubes.

                                                        FERC determined that there was no problem at the Yelm powerhouse tailrace because there
                                                     was no evidence indicating there was a problem. NMFS argued that there was no evidence
                                                     because the operators, Centralia City Light, refused the request by NMFS and others to conduct
                                                     a study of the problem. NMFS forced the issue to be addressed through the Federal Power Act's
                                                     Section 100) dispute resolution process. During the dispute, NMFS was the lead for the
                                                     various Federal and State agencies and with their help convinced FERC that the issue must be
                                                     studied. FERC intends to make such a study a part of the licensing for the project.

                                                                          Commencement Bay Restoration Planning

                                                     Commencement Bay (Tacoma, Washington's Harbor) in Puget Sound is near              the top of the
                                                     EPA's National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites. Under the Comprehensive
                                                     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, NOAA's Northwest Damage
                                                     Assessment and Restoration Center (DARC) is actively engaged in a natural resources damage
                                                     assessment (NRDA) effort. As part of this interagency natural resources trustee responsibility,


                                                                                                                                                    57










          PROGRAM
          ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                         the NMFS Northwest's Restoration Center has participated in extensive restoration planning
                                         undertaken in conjunction with a group of businesses and local governments identified as
                                         potentially responsible parties (PRPs.) The unique combination of parallel NRDA planning paths
                                         and trustee/PRP cooperation should significantly reduce the time required to establish an estimate
                                         of damages and to ultimately effect restoration projects in Commencement Bay.

                                           NMFS staff serves on the trustee negotiation team and as the restoration specialist in concert
                                         with the DARC Northwest resource counsel. In these roles, NMFS has participated in the
                                         finalization of plans for a pilot restoration project for the 1991 $0.6 million St. Paul (Simpson
                                         Tacoma Kraft) NRDA settlement. In addition, NMFS has helped craft a tentative $12 million plus
                                         property NRDA settlement with the Port of Tacoma which will accelerate local restoration
                                         planning.


                                         F. Alaska Region
                                         The Alaska Region, with its main office in Juneau and field office in Anchorage, manages large,
                                         valuable coastal and offshore fisheries. These fisheries are beginning to experience problems due
                                         to urban and industrial expansion typical in the other regions. The Alaska Fisheries Science
                                         Center (AFSQ in Seattle, Washington investigates the effects of petroleum development,
                                         logging, and mining on habitats and resources. AFSC also examines the relationship between
                                         environmental contaminants and diseases of demersal fish.


                                         AFSC also manages the Marine Entanglement Research Program (MERP) authorized by the
                                         Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment and Control Act of 1987 to study the nature, extent, and
                                         effects of North Pacific high seas driftnet fisheries on marine resources of interest to the United
                                         States.


                                           The National Marine Mammal Laboratory, apart of the AF SC, studies the habitats of marine
                                         mammals, especially whales and northern fur seals.


                                                          EPA And COE Propose Exempting Alaska From
                                                     Clean Water Act Provisions Based On One Percent Rule


                                         Because an estimated less than 1% of the wetlands in the State of Alaska have been developed,
                                         EPA issued a proposed rule November 4, 1992, proposing that wetlands in Alaska receive less
                                         protection under the Clean Water Act. This proposal did not consider the importance of
                                         differentiation by wetland habitat type and geographic area and their significance to fisheries
                                         resources. NMFS pointed out that projects in coastal wetlands would have more critically
                                         significant effects on Alaska's fishery resources than would development in tundra wetlands.
                                         Almost all the coastal wetlands, and probably much of Alaska's fisheries resources, could be
                                         destroyed without reaching the 1% criteria. EPA decided to withdraw the proposed rule due to
                                         extensive negative comments.









          58











                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS








                                                                                                                              Ir






                      Figure 25. Aerial view of
                      proposed oil loading terminal
                     site.










                                                                                               City of Valdez Seeks Installation of
                                           J@j
                                                                                           Pipeline to Pump Petroleum to Barges at
                                                                                                  Valdez Container Terminal


                                                     J
                                                                                      In May 1992, The City of Valdez proposed to modify an
                                                                                      existing COEpennit issued in 1979 that stipulated no petroleum
                                                                                      products were to be transferred at the Valdez Container
                                                                                      Terminal (VCT), to authorize the installation of a pipeline at
                                                   4                                  that site.

                                                                                         The pipeline would be used to deliver refined petroleum
                                                                                      products from a new Petro Star refinery nearby to barges at the
                                                                                      tenninal. At risk of hydrocarbon pollution was nearby Duck
                                                                                      Flats, a 1,000-acre salt marsh (which all parties agree is an
                                                                                      Aquatic Resource of National Importance (ARNI)) with
                                                                                      valuable habitat for five species of salmon, over 80 species of
                                                                                      waterfowl, shorebirds, and other birds. The calculated value
                                                                                      of only the salmon fisheries supported by the Duck Flats was
                                                                                      $2.3 million annually.
                                   -7W

                                                                                         NMFS objected to the proposed modification in May 1993,
                                                                                      and recommended that the permit be denied due to the adverse
                                                                                      impact of possible oil spills and chronic low-level pollution
                                                                                      from hydrocarbons on Duck Flats. Further, the proposed
                                                                                      permit did not meet the alternative analysis requirements of
                                                                                      the NEPA and the CWA. NMFS also believed that there were
                                                                                      unresolved national policy and procedural issues that required
                            Figure 26. Closer view of the actual terminal.            further consultation.



                                                                                                                                                   59










            PROGRAM
             ACCOMPLISHMENTS


                                                In compliance with 404(q) guidelines, NMFS regional staff requested higher review of the
                                             permit modification by the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere (ASOA.) The issue
                                             was submitted to the ASOA who then requested higher review of the permit modification by
                                             the Assistant Secretary of the Amy, Civil Works (ASA(CW)).

                                                The permitmodification review by theASA(CW) concluded that substantial andunacceptable
                                             impacts to the resources might occur as a result of spills and determined that additional
                                             evaluation of the project and the practicability of alternative sites is required. The permit
                                             modification request was denied pending further and more thorough analysis; thus, the COE
                                             acknowledged and met all of the NMFS requests.

                                                                       Habitat Protection Working Group

                                             A council of six Federal and State trustees was established to administer the $900,000,000 civil
                                             settlement to restore resources and services injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. NMFS
                                             habitat biologists, in cooperation with the Office of Oil Spill Damage Assessment and
                                             Restoration, participated in the Habitat Protection Working Group during the habitat evaluation
                                             process. NMFS coordinates with the other agencies for NOAA trust resources damaged by the
                                             oil spill.

                                                The Trustee Council takes "restoration actions" such as acquisition of habitat by purchase
                                             of private land or partial interest such as conservation easements, mineral rights, or timber
                                             rights to prevent further injury to the resources. After an extensive ranking process including
                                             evaluation of development threats, the Council approved for acquisition 7,500 acres in the
                                             China Poot area near Kachemak Bay. Seal Bay, located on Afognak Island, was also ranked
                                             highly. Acquisition of Seal Bay was discussed at the Trustee Council meeting May 13, 1993.
                                             A property owner donated 2,500, acres clearing the way for the acquisition of all 17,391 acres.
                                             The Trustee Council approved funding for this parcel contingent on appraisals, title search, etc.

                                                                      Copper River Highway Construction

                                             The Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) started road construction in regulated
                                             habitats in the Copper River prior to obtaining all the proper permits and authorizations. If
                                             completed, the road would provide a connection between the city of Cordova and the rest of
                                             Alaska. The portion of the project completed without authorization entailed the construction
                                             of approximately 200 feet of roadbed along approximately 1.7 miles of riverbank. Several
                                             clearwater tributaries and drainages were crossed. The impacts of this project resulted in the
                                             loss of important riparian wetlands along the banks of the Copper River and the discharge of
                                             fill into clear water streams, resulting in adverse impacts to important spawning and rearing
                                             habitat for salmonids.


                                                NMFS made formal comment to the COE on the importance of the Copper River and its
                                             tributaries in providing migration, spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids. Facts on the
                                             importance of riparian wetlands in maintaining the resources of the Copper River drainage
                                             were also provided. In addition, NMFS commented on the significance of the habitat to
                                             commercial and recreational fisheries.


                                                The COE has taken the case to the U.S. Attorney and is presently in the discovery phase.
                                             No trial date has been set. In the interim, the ADOT has begun work on an Environmental
                                             Impact Statement to evaluate the project alternatives and other routes available to construct a
                                             road to Cordova. NMFS has provided comments on the preliminary alternative analysis.


           60










                   PROGRAM
                   ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                 Seafood Processing Discharge into Nearshore Marine
                                                              Waters Near Dutch Harbor on the Aleutian Chain, Alaska

                                                  Captains Bay, the body of water receiving the effluent, is a deep fiord with a very shallow entrance
                                                  that inhibits circulation within the water column. Past research has found naturally occurring
                                                  oxygen depletion within the Bay during late summer. The addition of a high-volume oxygen-
                                                  demanding effluent threatened the health of the Bay's resources, including commercially
                                                  important fish and shellfish. This was the first major discharge authorized for Captains Bay.

                                                     NMFS staff expressed concern about the potential impacts to fisheries resources associated
                                                  with the proposed discharge. During the public review period for the permit, NMFS coordinated
                                                  extensively with EPA, recommending reductions or alterations to the discharge which would
                                                  minimize water quality impacts. EPA, however, decided to issue a permit for the discharge.
                                                  NMFS biologists travelled to the site before the proposed permit authorization date, intending to
                                                  document local marine resources in the vicinity of the outfall. Using SCUBA gear, NMFS
                                                  biologists found the processing company had begun discharging wastes prior to the effective date
                                                  of the EPA permit. Further, the material discharged was not in compliance with the pending
                                                  permit's conditions. NMFS documented the discharge on a videotape which was then provided
                                                  to the EPA.


                                                     As a direct consequence of NNIFS'actions, the EPA's Office of the Inspector General, initiated
                                                  a full review of the case culminating in the issuance of a Special Report in January 1992. The
                                                  Report found EPA was not justified in issuing this permit, that improper procedure had been
                                                  followed, and that enforcement of the violations had been absent or inadequate. The EPA
                                                  Inspector General found 17 separate violations of the discharge limitations for this permit and
                                                  recommended civil penalties as well as revocation of the permit. The EPA did not, however,
                                                  revoke the authorization but did levy fines on the permittee and order full compliance with permit
                                                  limitations. As a result, wastes are screened prior to discharge and the applicant now is attempting
                                                  to maximize by-product recovery of fishwaste for the manufacture of fishmeal.

                                                     In conducting follow-up site investigations the following year, NMFS research biologists
                                                  discovered hundreds of red king crab, urchins, and octopus dead or dying in the immediate vicinity
                                                  of this plant. Analysis of biological samples collected at the site suggested the animals died from
                                                  oxygen depletion. NMFS also sampled water chemistry and found dissolved oxygen levels below
                                                  two ppm -well below levels that could kill many fish and invertebrates. The conditions probably
                                                  result from discharging condensate from the fishineal plant and waste water from the processing
                                                  plant (both effluents have extremely high biological oxygen demand). Captains Bay has since
                                                  been identified as an "Impaired Water" under Section 303(d) of the CWA. EPA is now proposing
                                                  to modify the permit and NMFS will be involved in this process.


                                                                              Construction of a Commercial Boat
                                                                     Harbor in St. Hermans Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska

                                                  The proposed harbor would place a rubblemound rock breakwater across an 1800 foot-wide, 60
                                                  foot-deep channel between two islands. This channel is one of several local areas which act as
                                                  juvenile rearing (nursery) habitat for the red king crab. The king crab population comprises one
                                                  of the State's most valuable commercial fisheries. Past census data had indicated upwards of
                                                  10,000 crabs utilizing this immediate area. This project would destroy several acres of crab
                                                  habitat through filling and partially block a migration corridor between St. Hermans Harbor and
                                                  the open ocean.

                                                                                                                                                     61










           PROGRAM
           ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                NMFS biologists and scientists worked with the local sponsor, the City of Kodiak, and the
                                             COE to construct replacement habitat for the red king crab. Through NMFS research, a strong
                                             correlation between juvenile crab and certain vertical structures, such as wood piling, was
                                             discovered. From this research, a proposal was developed to utilize the Corps construction
                                             engineers and local materials to mitigate the loss of habitat. The Corps has dedicated $75,000
                                             to the project. NMFS personnel are acting as consultants to the Corps of Engineers and will
                                             monitor the success of the mitigation after construction.

                                                          Bradley Lake and Terror Lake Hydroelectric Projects


                                             The Bradley Lake and Terror Lake hydroelectric projects, planned and constructed in the late
                                             1980's, are the two largest hydroelectric developments in Alaska. Both projects were located
                                             on important anadromous fish streams with multiple populations of Pacific salmon. They were
                                             licensed with a special condition requiring the operator to release adequate water for fish since
                                             the migrating, spawning, and rearing waters for these fish populations would have been
                                             severely reduced by upstream storage for hydro-generation.


                                                NMFS biologists were extensively involved in the early planning processes of these
                                             projects. Through this coordination, NMFS was able to work with the developer prior to, as
                                             well as during, the Federal license review process. NMFS advocated release of waters to
                                             maintain all downstream fishery habitat. After construction, NMFS has maintained contact
                                             with the operators and periodically reviews each project to insure the salmon and their habitat
                                             remain viable.


                                                The salmon populations of both hydroelectric development sites have responded, remaining
                                             stable within the Badley River. Salmon in the waters affected by the Terror Lake project have
                                             increased by 150,000 fish since operations began.







                                                                                                                                       --Mum
                                                                                                           A
                                                                                                         lax

                                                                                                                      Ns 1K

                                                    10.0                                     L
                                                  to-n

              Figure 27. An example of
                                                                                                                                             A
              a hydroelectric dam with
              fish ladders at right.
                                             MON,





            62










                  PROGRAM
                  ACCOMPLISHMENTS



                                                                            The Trans Alaska Gas System (TAGS)
                                                                  Pipeline to be Built by the Yukon Pacific Corporation

                                                     A project is being developed that will include a gas conditioning plant on the North Slope and
                                                     an 800-mile long, 42-inch diameter, chilled and buried pipeline. The TAGS pipeline will
                                                     transport natural gas along the same route as the existing Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) which
                                                     carries crude oil from the North Slope to Valdez. The new pipeline will terminate at Anderson
                                                     Bay approximately three miles west of the TAPS crude oil terminal. Anderson Bay will be the
                                                     site of the TAGS liquefaction plant and terminal where Alaska's North Slope natural gas
                                                     reserves will be transformed into liquefied natural gas and shipped to customers in Japan, South
                                                     Korea and Taiwan.


                                                        NMFS staff actively participated on an interagency task force involved in reviewing and
                                                     commenting on the proposed TAGS route and marine terminal project. NMFS participation
                                                     raised concerns that the original EIS did not fully address impacts to living marine resources
                                                     and aquatic habitat at the proposed Anderson Bay Terminal Facility including the need for
                                                     additional Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act

                                                        As a resultof NMFS intervention, FERC is in the process of completing a supplemental EIS.
                                                     This document responds to NMFS comments in ways that result in project changes to reduce
                                                     and avoid impacts such as:

                                                         1. developing timing constraints for discharging of fill into open water to reduce impacts
                                                              on fish by minimizing siltation and turbidity during critical life stages,
                                                         2. changing the location of the disposal site for overburden to reduce habitat loss of
                                                              intertidal and wetland areas.




                                                                                   Tongass Timber Reform Act

                                                     The anadromous fish populations in Alaska exist because of extensive freshwater habitat for
                                                     spawning and rearing of fish. In 1988, the Alaska Region of NMFS established and promoted
                                                     a policy for riparian habitat protection in Alaska in order to maintain optimum production of
                                                     anadromous salmonids. Research conducted by the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center
                                                     recommended a minimum buffer zone width of 30 meters (100 feet) be maintained on each side
                                                     of anadromous fish streams during timber harvest operations.

                                                        Subsequent to publication of NMFS'reconimendations, an extensive conservation movement
                                                     was carried out in Alaska related to habitat protection of anadromous fish habitat on the
                                                     Tongass National Forest. It culminated on November 28, 1990, in the amendment of the
                                                     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act with the Tongass Timber Reform Act (Public
                                                     Law 101-626). Contained in the law is the requirement that the Secretary of Agriculture
                                                     maintain a buffer zone within which commercial timber harvesting shall be prohibited, of no
                                                     less than one hundred feet in width on each side of all Class I streams (anadromous fish streams)
                                                     in the Tongass National Forest and on those Class II streams (tributaries to anadromous fish
                                                     streams) which flow directly into a Class I stream. NMFS staff were active in many aspects of
                                                     the legislative process, including public and Congressional hearings, and success of the
                                                     legislation can be largely attributed to NMFS' participation and influence on the process.



                                                                                                                                                    63










             PROGRAM
              ACCOMPUSHMENTS




                                                                            .@ AW











                                                                           7Q,
                                                                                                                                 '.7F
                Figure 28. Wooded
                valley in varying stages
                of timber removal.




                                                                                                             @a'







                                                                    Airport Expansion at Hoonah, Alaska

                                          Plans to expand the Hoonah airport required the filling of 11.5 acres of tidal-influenced wetlands.
                                          NMFS recommended mitigation for the project include several components: 1) forming intertidal
                                          pools near two small coho salmon streams at the seaward end of the runway; 2) widening and
                                          contouring Gartina Creek for spawning habitat (chum and pink salmon used the area the first
                                          season after construction, 1992); 3) enhancing a rearing area made by flooding an abandoned 1.2
                                          acre boffow pit by adding boulder clusters and cable-anchored trees. Coho salmon and Dolly
                                          Varden char were observed in this area the first season after construction (1992); 4) creating a
                                          spawning area and rearing pool while re-routing a 200-foot long section of Coho Creek; 5)
                                          creating four ponds for migrating salmon rearing and resting areas in upstream Coho Creek. The
                                          stream was diverted into the ponds and has been used for spalk@ning by pink salmon; 6) installing
                                          two new culverts so Coho Creek could be used forrearing salmon; and 7) replacing a road crossing
                                          at Shotter Creek with an open arch culvert to preserve the spawning area. Before any work was
                                          done in that particular section of the creek, all fish were seined and placed elsewhere in the same
                                          system.













            64





                                Future Directions



                                                    Although there has been much progress from 1991 through 1993, much remains to be done.
                                                    The loss of near shore ocean and estuarine fishery habitat is one of the greatest long-term
                                                    threats to the productivity of U.S. marine fisheries. These losses and degradation of the
                                                    remaining habitat are major factors contributing to poor harvests, depletion, endangerment,
                                                    and extinction of living marine resources. Managing the stocks and promoting the recovery
                                                    of endangered or depleted stocks is no longer sufficient. We must find additional ways to
                                                    protect the habitat of these marine resources more aggressively if they are to survive.

                                                       Based on the findings of recent reports from the Department of Commerce's Office of the
                                                    Inspector General (OIG), William Chandler Associates, and the National Fish and Wildlife
                                                    Foundation, OHP has undertaken the following actions.

                                                       ï¿½ Articulation of a new national direction for both the headquarters and field office,.

                                                       ï¿½ Development of budget initiatives to obtain necessary resources for implementation
                                                    of NMFS' mandated habitat authorities,


                                                       0 Pursuit of stronger legislative authority through amendments to existing statutes,
                                                    improvement of existing memoranda of agreement by which issues are elevated from the
                                                    field to Washington, D.C., and

                                                       0 Development of a national performance tracking system to document program
                                                    accomplishments.

                                                    A. Programmatic Alignment

                                                    In October 1992, NMFS created OHP. This office will achieve program recognition by
                                                    filling the Director's position at the Senior Executive Service level. The Director will
                                                    exercise greater authority over the development of national habitat protection policy and
                                                    setting priorities over NMFS' headquarters and regional program management activities.
                                                    The NMFS Restoration Center will be transferred into OHP to ensure full integration of
                                                    habitat protection and restoration activities. In addition, a new Anadromous Fish Habitat
                                                    Division has been created. The purpose of this Division is to position NMFS as a lead Federal
                                                    agency for protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Nation's anadromous fish habitat. The
                                                    Division staff is also involved in rulemaking, developing an NMFS anadromous fish habitat
                                                    policy, interacting with officials of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, and
                                                    activities with Treaty tribes, states and private interest groups.

                                                       Efforts are underway to improve OHP's interaction with FERC. Meetings in 1993 have
                                                    signaled the beginning of anew, improved relationship with this agency. FERC Commissioners
                                                    have supported increasing public and resource management agencies' involvement in their
                                                    activities. FERC also has solicited public comment on decommissioning old projects and the
                                                    mitigation of cumulative adverse impacts. OHP and NMFS field offices will actively work
                                                    with FERC on these issues.






                                                                                                                                                 65










           FUTURE
           DIRECTIONS




                                            Another important program area will be increased application of habitat management by
                                         ecosystem (watershed). The health of coastal wetlands and oceans, as well as their biota, depends
                                         on the water quality of the watersheds that feed them. The entire water system surrounding the
                                         site of possible or actual damage must be considered because the cause of damage may be located
                                         some distance away. In coming years Habitat Protection field staff and OHP will continue the
                                         development of protocols and fine tune procedures to improve the techniques of ecosystem
                                         management. The Chesapeake Bay Program is essentially an ongoing experiment in ecosystem
                                         management. The Chesapeake Bay Office successfully integrates NOAA's capabilities in a
                                         manner that efforts can be transferred elsewhere.


                                         B. New National Direction
                                         To establish a new national direction to the field offices, the 1983 Habitat Conservation Policy
                                         is being revised. Development of the new policy will involve NMFS headquarters, field offices,
                                         other NOAA offices, MAFAC and other constituents. Elements of the policy will include: strong
                                         mandates to protect habitats of living marine resources through active and effective fishery habitat
                                         consultation; coordination between NMFS habitat research and management activities; alliances
                                         with NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils; and encouragement for NMFS to
                                         meet with permit applicants before they submit Federal license or permit applications. When
                                         completed, the policy will be published in the Federal Register.

                                         C. Habitat Protection Legislative Initiatives
                                         While the above-mentioned actions planned in the administrative, policy and budget areas will
                                         greatly improve OHP activities related to our ongoing mission and responsibilities, over the long
                                         term a stronger NMFS habitat program will require changes in our statutory mandates. OHP has
                                         become involved in several Administration initiatives seeking to improve existing legislative
                                         authorities to address current and future environmental issues. GHP will build upon the following
                                         activities to strengthen the legal basis for protecting living marine resource habitats.

                                         Increase Habitat Protection Responsibilities and Authorities in NMFS-Specific Legislation:

                                         Under the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, OHP is
                                         seeking changes to emphasize the importance of marine, estuarine and aquatic habitats to
                                         commercial and recreational fisheries. This includes proposed amendments requiring the formal
                                         identification of marine and estuarine fish habitats that are essential to obtaining optimum fishery
                                         yields. OHP will continue to seek amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act that will
                                         augment the NMFS' existing consultative role in the review of Federal actions.



                                         Broaden Habitat Protection Provisions in Other Key Environmental Laws:

                                         OHP will continue direct involvement with the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
                                         through its Chesapeake Bay Office, which represents NMFS on the Interagency CWA Working
                                         Group. OHP's headquarter's Habitat Policy and Management Division represents the Department
                                         of Commerce on the White House's Interagency Working Group on Federal Wetlands Policy and
                                         NMFS on the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process. This latter group will also
                                         examine the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the River and Harbor Act, and the




           66










                   FUTURE
                   DIRECTIONS
                                                     Water Resources Development Act in terms of enhancing its habitat protection provisions.


                                                     Seek Greater Habitat Protection Emphasis in NOAA-Specific Legislation:

                                                     OHP will continue to work with other NOAA elements in the creation of legislation to protect
                                                     coral reefs and associated ecosystems, in both this country and internationally, under the
                                                     Department of State's U.S. Coral Reef Initiative. The 1995 reauthorization of the Coastal Zone
                                                     Management Act will also provide opportunities to expand Federal/state partnerships and
                                                     improve the national mandates in a number of areas including preserving important coastal
                                                     habitats and developing non-point source pollution control plans.

                                                     D. Habitat Protection Budget Initiative
                                                     A multi-year budget plan for the Habitat Protection Program has been developed in direct
                                                     response to the OIG January 1994 Report on the Office of Habitat Protection. This budget
                                                     initiative is designed to meet the Administration's "no net loss" of wetlands policy and
                                                     mandated NMFS mission to provide more protection for living marine resources. This plan
                                                     is being fully integrated into NOAA's Strategic Plan. The plan identifies five specific areas that
                                                     require enhancement of funding for NMFS to address the declines in living marine resource
                                                     habitats.


                                                     Basic Habitat Protection Program:

                                                     Resources are being sought to augment Habitat Protection Program activities aimed at an
                                                     integrated approach to managing and protecting the marine resources, watershed management
                                                     and human impacts. NMFS will work to secure resources to support four essential Habitat
                                                     Protection Program activities. Funds will be provided for increases in quantity and quality of
                                                     consultations on Federal projects, permits and licenses with significant detrimental effects on
                                                     coastal ecosystems and biodiversity. Increased identification of habitat in Magnuson Act
                                                     Fishery Management Plans will be strongly encouraged. Proactive participation in Coastal
                                                     America, the National Estuary Program and any new Clean Water Act watershed planning will
                                                     be considered part of the base program rather than added responsibilities. NMFS will
                                                     significantly increase technical-scientific support for regional habitat staff in developing
                                                     sound agency positions on critically important projects.

                                                     Magnuson Act Amendment Requiring Identification of Essential Habitat:

                                                     Passage of proposed fishery habitat amendments to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
                                                     Management Act under the 1994 re-authorization will require additional resources. Upon
                                                     passage of these amendments, there will be an urgent need to identify essential fish habitats
                                                     in the fishery management plans. Designation of essential habitats will identify key geographic
                                                     areas of concern for Federal and state agencies and the public. Support will be needed to assist
                                                     the eight Fisheries Management Councils to identify essential habitats and incorporate them
                                                     as amendments to their plans.

                                                     Anadromous Fishery Habitat Improvements:

                                                     Anadromous fish stocks are imperiled in all regions of the United States, primarily due to loss
                                                     of habitat and impacts of hydropower dams. Because licenses for dams are issued for a period
                                                     of up to 50 years, NMFS fishery consultations with FERC represent a major opportunity to
                                                     overcome adverse effects caused by past and future licensing. Over 200 major hydroelectric



                                                                                                                                                     67










             FUTURE
             DIRECTIONS


                                         dams are to be licensed or re-licensed during the next 10 years. This offers NMFS a major
                                         challenge to recommend and participate in improvements in anadromous fishery resources.
                                         Priority will be placed on activities designed to protect anadromous fishery habitats both as part
                                         of license consultation and participation in development of new national policies or processes
                                         such as developing regulations for fishway design.











                                                                                                                ANW'

                                         IBM
                              n e
             Figure 29. A dam o th
             Mackenzie River outside of
             Eugene, Oregon.














                                         Activities to Avoid Endangered Species Act Listings:

                                         Funds will be requested to improve existing programs aimed at reducing the need for listings of
                                         endangered species (i.e., pre-listing processes associated with the identification of essential
                                         habitats for candidate species, participation in the assessment and determination of essential
                                         habitats and ecosystem health for candidate species, collection of information regarding potential
                                         threats and impacts in designated areas, and advance planning and permit reviews to avoid
                                         irrecoverable losses of habitats and ecosystem health). Habitat Protection Program activities
                                         which link closely to NMFS'Protected Resources initiatives outlined in the NOAA Strategic Plan
                                         to take a proactive approach to species and habitat protection will receive special emphasis.

                                         Habitat Restoration & Mitigation Technology Development:

                                         Restoration has not been attempted for many NOAA trust habitats because of a lack of appropriate
                                         methodologies and funding. Most of the methods for restoring habitats that have been adversely
                                         affected or altered have not been rigorously tested under controlled conditions or in a range of
                                         geographic areas. As a consequence, a significant proportion of restoration actions have been
                                         viewed with skepticism relative to their success. New funds will be sought for watershed
                                         restoration plans developed by Federal, state, and nongovernmental partners and program
                                         development plans for Habitat Restoration Research Programs are emphasized. Theimprovements
                                         of science in the mitigation of developmental activities to avoid the need for later restoration of
                                         degraded resources are to be given the highest priority. Research on innovative techniques
                                         developed for restoration and clean-up approaches will have special preference. Plans to provide


           68











                    FUTURE
                    DIRECTIONS


                                                    databases for protocols will be essential. In addition, mitigation techniques research dealing
                                                    with such continually controversial issues such as beach nourishment, marsh management and
                                                    use of contaminated dredged material will receive strong encouragement. Funds will be set
                                                    aside for the creation of habitat evaluation teams which will serve to increase the access of
                                                    NMFS regulatory staff to scientific and technical support.



                                                    E. New National Tracking System

                                                    The current lack of an adequate performance tracking system is a major obstacle in evaluating
                                                    program effectiveness and communicating program accomplishments, To correct this
                                                    problem, OHP will fund a contract to create a tracking system. It will use regionally-generated
                                                    data fed into an integrated national database to generate information onpermits; and construction
                                                    programs and project accomplishments. When in place, the system should provide consistent,
                                                    accurate and timely data on the status of all national and regional OHP habitat projects.







































                                                                                                                                                   69





           Regional Habitat Directory


                                                       National Marine Fisheries Service


                                                              Regional Habitat Offices



                                       Northeast Region Habitat & Protected Resources Division
                                       One Blackburn Drive
                                       Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
                                       (508) 281-9300
                                       FAX: (508) 281-9301


                                       Southeast RegionHabitat Conservation Division
                                       9721 Executive Center Drive
                                       St..Petersburg. FL 33702
                                       (813) 893-3503
                                       FAX: (813) 893-3111


                                       Southwest Region Habitat Conservation Division
                                       501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200
                                       Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
                                       (310) 980-4041
                                       FAX: (310) 980-4047


                                       Northwest Region Habitat Conservation Branch
                                       911 N.E. I Ith Avenue, Rm. 620
                                       Portland, OR 97232
                                       (503) 231-2376
                                       FAX: (503) 230-3388


                                       Alaska Region Protected Resources Management Division
                                       P.O. Box 21668
                                       Juneau, AK 99802-1668
                                       (907) 586-7235
                                       FAX: (907) 586-7131









          70





                List of Acronyms


                                             af                        acre feet
                                             AFSC                      Alaska Fisheries Science Center
                                             ARNI                      Aquatic Resource of National Importance
                                             ASA(CW)                   Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
                                             ASOA                      Assistant Secretary for Oceans & Atmosphere
                                             BR                        Bureau of Reclamation
                                             CCC                       California Coastal Commission
                                             CCMP                      Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
                                             CDFG                      California Department of Fish & Game
                                             CERCLA                    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, &Liability
                                                                       Actofl980
                                             CEQ                       Council on Environmental Quality
                                             cfs                       Cubic feet per second
                                             COE                       Army Corps of Engineers
                                             CVP                       Central Valley Project
                                             CWA                       Clean Water Act
                                             cy                        cubic yards
                                             CZM                       Coastal Zone Management
                                             CZMA                      Coastal Zone Management Act
                                             DARC                      Damage Assessment Restoration Center
                                             DEP                       Department of Environmental Protection
                                             DMR                       Department of Marine Resources
                                             DNR                       Department of Natural Resources
                                             DNREC                     Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
                                             DOC                       Department of Commerce
                                             DOE                       Department of Energy
                                             DOI                       Department of Interior
                                             DOT                       Department of Transportation
                                             EEZ                       Exclusive Economic Zone
                                             EIR                       Environmental Impact Review
                                             EIS                       Environmental Impact Study
                                             EPA                       Environmental Protection Agency
                                             ESA                       Endangered Species Act
                                             FERC                      Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
                                             FHWA                      Federal Highway Administration
                                             FMP                       Fishery Management Plan
                                             FSM                       Federated States of Micronesia
                                             FWPCA                     Federal Water Pollution Control Act
                                             GCID                      Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
                                             HAZMAT                    Hazardous Materials
                                             HCP                       Habitat Conservation Program
                                             HGP                       Hawaii Geothermal Project
                                             LMR                       Living Marine Resources
                                             MAFAC                     Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Advisory Council
                                             MAFMC                     Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
                                             MFCMA                     Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
                                             mllw                      mean least low water
                                             MMPA                      Marine Mammal Protection Act


                                                                                                                                     71









         LIST OF ACRONYMS




                               MPRSA               Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
                               MRC                 Marine Review Committee
                               mw                  megawatt
                               NEFSC               Northeast Fisheries Science Center
                               NEP                 National Estuary Program
                               NEPA                National Environmental Policy Act
                               NERR                National Estuarine Research Reserve
                               NMFS                National Marine Fisheries Service
                               NOAA                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                               NRDA                Natural Resources Damage Assessment
                               NWFSC               Northwest Fisheries Science Center
                               NYS                 New York State
                               OAD                 Ocean Assessments Division
                               OPA-90              Oil Pollution Act of 1990
                               OSC                 On-Site Coordinator
                               ppm                 parts per million
                               PRP                 Potentially Responsible Party
                               RBDD                Red Bluff Diversion Dam
                               RO                  Regional Office
                               SAMP                Special Area Management Plan
                               SCE                 Southern California Edison
                               SEFSC               Southeast Fishery Science Center
                               SMBRP               Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
                               SONGS               San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
                               SPREP               South Pacific Regional Environment Program
                               SWFSC               Southwest Fishery Science Center
                               TAGS                Trans Alaska Gas System
                               TAPS                Trans Alaska Pipeline
                               TCC                 Tehama Colusa Canal
                               USFWS               U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
                               VCT                 Valdez Container Terminal
                               WCP                 Wetland Conservation Plan
























       72





                   Glossary



                                                     Anadromous          Fish, such as salmon, that spend part of their life in the sea but ascend rivers
                                                                         at regular intervals to spawn.

                                                     Archimedes          Device made of a tube bent spirally around an axis used to raise water over
                                                     screws              a restriction.


                                                     Appurtenant         Accessory structure on a harbor or dock.
                                                     structure


                                                     Backfill            Materials placed behind a dike or berm for reinforcement or increased
                                                                         strength.

                                                     Barrier             Sandy, elongated islandjust off the coast which serves to provide protection
                                                     islands             to lagoons and wetlands from marine elements; these dynamic islands form
                                                                         and change position and shape in response to coastal processes and human
                                                                         actions.


                                                     Benthic             Occurring at the bottom of a body of water, usually in the depths of the
                                                                         ocean.


                                                     Berm                Strip of ground along a dike.

                                                     Borrow pit          Excavated area where materials have been removed for use as fill elsewhere.

                                                     Cap                 Method of covering a material, generally contaminated sediments, with a
                                                                         layer of clean material in order to prevent the release of the tainted material
                                                                         into the water body.


                                                     Culvert             A transverse drain which redirects water flow.


                                                       bedding           Materials, generally gravel, used to replicate natural river bottom lining the
                                                                         bottom of a culvert.


                                                       sizing            Specialization of culvert diameter to best replicate natural flow of water
                                                                         which would alter fish passage.

                                                     Dike                Bank, usually of earth material constructed to control or confine waters.

                                                     Drum screen         Type of fish screen which revolves in order to move fish across a weir and
                                                                         around a dam.


                                                     Earthen plug        Dike composed made from dredged material and rubble to block or fill
                                                                         breached areas or canals.


                                                     Effluent            Waste material discharged into the environment.




                                                                                                                                                        73










            GLOSSARY




                                              Estuary            Shallow bodies of water, such as bays, where freshwater empties into and
                                                                 mixes with saltwater.


                                              Fault line         Fracture line in the Earth's crust accompanied by a displacement in the
                                                                 parallel direction.

                                              Fish ladder        Mechanism for fish which bypasses a dam and imitates the step-like terrain
                                                                 of natural riverbed.


                                              Fish screen        Barrier which prevents or diverts fish from entrance into turbines or spill
                                                                 ways.


                                              Fishway            Corridor set aside which allows fish, generally salmon, to travel around a
                                                                 dam or natural structure on a river.


                                              Fixed-crest        A dam or blockade used to raise the water level or divert flow which is
                                              weir               invariable in its height.

                                              Fluvial            Organisms and materials living in streams or produced by stream action.

                                              Hard-bank          Substrate composed generally of rock or reef material which supports a
                                              community          specific community, compared to a community over a sand or shell
                                                                 substrate.


                                              Ichthyo-           Larval stages of fish which have little control of movement through the
                                              plankton           water column.

                                              Impaired           Rivers and streams impeded by dams, dikes, berms, etc.
                                              water


                                              Mud waves          Disturbance of marsh/mudflats by air or water currents which increases
                                                                 erosion and disturb habitat.


                                              Outfall            The outlet of a river or stream or discharge point of a drain or sewer.

                                              Overburden         Dredged material from land, channel, or harbor, generally composed of
                                                                 rock.


                                              Pioneer road       New road development through a previously undeveloped area.

                                              Predation          The result of a malfunctioning fish passage, a dead-end passage which traps
                                              sink               fish and does not permit their return to the river from a passage.

                                              Relieving          Dock facilities and infrastructure within harbors.
                                              platform

                                              Riparian           Vegetated ecosystems found along a stream or river; such areas
                                                                 characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic
                                                                 flooding and influence from the adjacent water body.




           74










                 GLOSSARY




                                                  Rotary            Tool used to dig shallow water courses through wetlands with minimal
                                                   ditcher          environmental impact from disposal of dredged material.

                                                  Rubblemound       Rock pile used to break strong currents and wave energy in order to protect
                                                                    sensitive nearshore habitat.


                                                  Scarps            Ditches below a fortification or a low steep slope along a beach caused by
                                                                    wave erosion.


                                                  Spoil             Dredged material from a harbor, channel, or land, containing sediment,
                                                                    organics, or rock material.

                                                  Sprigging         Method of planting seagrasses or salt marshes with vegetative stalks in the
                                                                    reconstruction of wetlands, saltmarsh, or seagrass beds.

                                                  Tailrace          Outfall region at the end of a fish passage diversion which circumvents a
                                                                    dam.


                                                  Tide gate         Mechanism used to regulate tidal flow through impounded areas, generally
                                                                    wetlands and salt marshes.


                                                  Variable-         A weir which can be set at varying heights to alter water flow.
                                                  crest weir













































                                                                                                                                              75



























































                                                                                                                                  M@           --M"@
                                                                                                                          1111@1111       r@11@1(01(lilll killill