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





                                                               ASMFC
                                                             FILE COPY
                           Special Report No. 31           DO NOT REMOVE 
                                    of the
            The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission






                ATLANTIC COAST MARINE ARTIFICIAL REEF HABITAT:


                      PROGRAM AND POLICY GUIDELINES FOR


             COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT






                           ATLANTIC  STATES MARINE 

                           FISHERIES COMMISSION








                                        






       SH                        December, 1993
       157.85
       .A7
       G6
       1993
       no.31
















                   ATLANTIC COAST MARINE ARTIFICIAL REEF HABITAT:
                                                                       y
                          PROGRAM AND POLICY GUIDELINES FOR


               COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT.











                                        Prepared for:
  Icy-
L                        The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission



                                        Submitted by:


                                 William R. Gordon, Jr., Ph.D.
                                 Department of Marine Affairs
                                  University of Rhode Island
                                 Kingstor, Rhode Island 02881








                                       December, 1993










                                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



                  Existing state plans and information from members of the Artificial Reef
           Committee were used extensively in preparation of this document. In addition, Dr.
           Gordon has incorporated an exhaustive review of the literature into developing
           recommendations to enhance ongoing programs. Opinions expressed are those of
           the author and are not intended to represent a consensus of the ASMFC Artificial
           Reef Committee, or any policy positions of the Commission as a whole.

                  The Commission would like to acknowledge the diligent efforts of Dr.
           Gordon and the contributions of the Artificial Reef Committee in preparation of
           this timely document. In addition, special thanks goes to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
           Service for providing critical funding for this project through a grant agreement
           (grant no. 14-48-0009-93-1256) between the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
           Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid in Sport Fish
           Restoration Program.




                                                              Richard T. Christian
                                                              Recreational Species Coordinator




                                               '0 i LIS,
                                                  07"      1. Vle
                                                             z











                                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


                   The National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (33 U.S.C.A. 2103, et seq.) was
            enacted to provide guidance to coastal states in the preparation of state artificial reef
            plans. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was given the responsibility
            for implementing the Act. In 1985, NMFS, (Department of Commerce) exercised this
            responsibility by publishing the National Artificial Reef Plan (National Plan). This
            document focused on the procedures that coastal states should undertake to plan for
            the development of artificial reef structures or complexes in the marine
            .environment. The completion of the National Plan was an essential first step
            towards achieving a nationwide appro    ach to artificial reef planning.

                   In 1987, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission identified the need
            to develop a comprehensive coastwide planning guide to assist states in preparing
            and implementing state artificial reef programs. Lacking a comprehensive,
            coastwide guide from which to develop individual state plans, many states have
            borrowed from a few existing plans developed to meet state-specific needs. The
            following guide goes beyond the scope of most of these parocl-dal plans and provides
            a broad overview of planning components, as well as specific recommendations to
            guide the development of a state artificial reef plan policy.           A list of these
            recommendations follows:


            State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                   A comprehensive statement on how policy elements are identified and
                   implemented within the State Plan. This statement should also reflect on
                   when and how a review and modification of procedures would be
                   undertaken.


                   The identification of all possible and realistic application goals of artificial
                   reefs. Provide associated background discussion that explains supportive
                   "why," "how," "where," and by "whom" elements.

                   An inventory of all unacceptable applications, with supportive justification.

                   A basis of citizen input or participant in the creation and review of any policy
                   statements.






                                                        ii








                     A periodic review of goals to accommodate any temporal changes in
                     philosophy or approach to the development and managernent of artificial
                     reefs.


                     The solicitation of public comments and participation in the artificial reef
                     planning process to the maximum extent practicable. Realistic opportunities
                     must be provided.

                     Public participation in reef construction and deployment activities, noting
                     liabilities to personal injury or damages for providing labor and/or
                     equipment to support these reef activities.

                     Soliciting economic contributions to state artificial reef programs.

                     Assisting in any support services to the state artificial reef prog-ram.
                                                                                      D                          I
                     Assisting in organizing and implementing fishing tournaments or rodeos,
                     with proceeds benefiting state artificial reef program activities.

                     An inventory process which evaluates shore-based access infrastructure
                     (fishing piers, jetties, waterfront locations or other shore-based access
                     locations) should be undertaken to identify respective quantity, distribution,
                     condition and related safety considerations.         Support infrastructure fo     r
                     parking should also be assessed in this process.

                     Functional plans for the enhancement of fishing piers, jetties, waterfront
                     locations or other shore-based access locations by effectively utilizing artificial
                     reefs. Plans should also address support infrastructure needs.

                     An assessment of the number of existing sport divers, shore-based and
                     offshore recreational anglers should be undertaken to assess present demand
                     as well as to identify the growth potential and subsequent needs within these
                     various user groups.

                     An assessment of sport and professional tournament activity should be
                     undertaken to identify potential conflicts with existing recreational and
                     commercial fishing activity. As noted, an effective use of artificial reefs can
                     distribute fishing activity over a wide area, allowing formal or informal
                     zoning or allocation of existing and planned reef rE!Sources.                   The








                  development of sportfishing tournaments may be a means of enhancing local
                  and state tourism economies.


                  An identification of potential applications to use artificial reef development
                  to enhance commercial fishing opportunities in state waters. This planning
                  effort should identify likely stocks to be enhanced, including preferred and
                  underutilized species. A coordinated effort is recommended for planning
                  artificial reef deployment in federal jurisdictions. This may be accomplished
                  by consulting with federal officials at NMFS and regional fishery
                  management councils. This consultation will also facilitate any planning for
                  economic relocation of commercial fishermen to other sectors of the
                  commercial fishery.

                  An outline of artificial reef design considerations which note particular
                  type(s) of desired habitat to be enhanced.

                  An effort to examine the demand for artificial reef deployment by charter and
                  party boat operators. It is this industry that is usually most vocal in its
                  support of reef development programs.

                  The determination of --he effective range of operators in offshore waters.
                  Managers should note where charter operators observe a decline in the
                  number of private recreational craft. This area of decline may offer an
                  appropriate point to begin seaward deployment of reef materials for the party
                  and charter boat industry.

                  Research to determine the capacity for relocating economically impacted
                  commercial fishermen into the party and charter boat industry.

                  A policy to promote the use of --,rtificial reefs as refuge where commercial or
                  recreational fishing would be prohibited. Managers may want to investigate
                  dedicating reef sites as Special Management Zones.

                  A means of providing strict enforcement or compliance through reporting of
                  violations by offshore participants. Proper reporting of violations is essential
                  to ensure the success of a refuge program. This may be facilitated by (1)
                  dedicating a portion of any collected fines to those who report the violations,
                  and (2) attaching accountability protection guidelines          to enforcement
                  components of the state plans.


                                                      iv








                   Conducting meetings with state artificial reef program managers and federal
                   marine sanctuary authorities (for those sanctuaries situated directly off a
                   state's coastline), to determine if there are any applications or benefits to
                   derived from placing artificial reefs within sanctuary boundaries.

                   Identification of uses for small scale reef structures to be deployed in the
                   shallow water areas of estuarine resources. Reef structures may be pre-
                   fabricated structures or made from materials that have a high ratio of
                   interstitial space, to provide maximum cover for juvenile fishes.











                                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS





                  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                           .........................................................................................................i
                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                       ........................................................................................................ ii
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS                      ........................................................................................................... vi
                  LIST OF FIGURES               ....................................................................................................................... ix



                  1. INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE
                            ARTIFICIAL REEF PLANNING                          ..................................................................................1


                     A. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission                            .............................................................1
                            1. Basis of involvement             .................................................................................................1
                     B. Habitat Typology            ...................................................................................................................2
                            1. Artificial reefs       ...............................................................................................................3
                            2. Fish aggregating devices (FADs)                   ...............................................................................3
                     C. History of the Artificial Reef Planning Process                        .............................................................4
                     D. Locational Considerations                 ................................................................................................5
                            1. State marine waters             ...................................................................................................5
                            2. Federal marine waters               ..............................................................................................5
                     E. The Need for Comprehensive and Systematic Planning                                    ............................................6
                            1. Site aspects       ....................................................................................................................7
                            2. Regional and state level planning                    ..........................................................................7
                     F. The Importance of Policy Guidance to this Process                           ......................................................7

                  Il. STATE PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES                                         .............................................................8

                     A. The Need for Goals and Objectives                     .................................................................................8
                     B. Program Goals for Marine Recreational Fisheries                             ......................................................9
                     C. Program Goals for Marine Sport Diving                         ....................................................................... 10
                     D. Program Goals for Marine Commercial Fisheries                               ...................................................... 10
                     E. Program Goals for Marine Resources/ San-, tuaries                           ..................................................... 10
                     F. Management Tool for Reef Stocks                      .................................................................................. 11

                  111. PLANNING FRAMEWORKS                            .......................................................................................... 12

                     A. National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984                            ............................................................... 12
                            1. National Artificial Reef Plan (National Plan)                        ..................................................... 12
                     B. Introduction to Statewide Planning of Marine
                            Artificial Reef Habitat           .................................................................................................. 13
                     C. Generic Elements in Planning                  ........................................................................................ 13
                     1. Plan development              ............................................................................................................. 15


                                                                                  vi








                     D. The Need for Plans to be Operational                      ........................................................................... 16
                     E. Comprehensive and Systematic Planning                           .................................................................... 16
                            1. State   .............................................................................................................................. 19
                            2. Regional       ....................................................................................................................... 21
                     F. Site Based Planning           ........................................................................................................... 21
                            1. Single reef units         ......................................................................................................... 21
                            2. Clustered reef units          ................................................................................................... 21
                     G. Implementation            ................................................................................................................. 22
                     H. Planning Time Frames                .................................................................................................... 22
                     I. Citizen Participation         ........................................................................................................... 23

                  IV. APPLICATIONS OF MARINE ARTIFICIAL REEF HABITAT                                                   ................................ 24


                     A. Section Overview: Clients of the Process                       .................................................................... 24
                     B. Targeting Client Groups              ................................................................................................... 25
                     C. General Recreational Applications                     ................................................................................ 26
                            1. Angling       ....................................................................................................................... 26
                            2. Diving      .......................................................................................................................... 26
                     D. Fishing Tournaments                ...................................................................................................... 26
                     E. Subsistence Fishing           ............................................................................................................ 28
                     F. Commercial Utilization of Reefs                    ................................................................................... 31
                            1. Finfish     ......................................................................................................................... 31
                            2. Lobster      .......................................................................................................................... 32
                                Party and charter boat operations                   .......................................................................... 33
                            a. economic relocation tool               ......................................................................................... 34
                     G. Artificial Reefs as Refuge              ................................................................................................. 35
                     H. Protected Area Management                    .......................................................................................... 36
                            1. Uses in marine sanctuaries                ..................................................................................... 36


                  V. JURISDICTIONAL COr,-,IDERATIONS                                    ...................................................................... 37

                     A. jurisdictions for Offshore --7"-anning Zones                      ................................................................. 37
                     B. Federal Agency Jurisdidioni                  ........................................................................................... 37
                            1. The National Marine Fisheries Service                       .............................................................. 37
                            2. The United States Army Corps of Engineers                           ...................................................... 38
                            3. The United States Coast Guard                   ............................................................................... 38
                            4. Environmental Protection Agency                      ........................................................................ 38
                            5. The United States Department of Commerce,
                                       Office of Coastal Resource Management,
                                       Marine and Estuarine Management Division,
                                       Marine -" anctuaries Program               .......................................................................... 38
                     C. Regional Jurisdictions             ....................................................................................................... 39
                            1. Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions                         ........................................................... 39
                            2. Regional Fishery Management Councils                          ............................................................. 39
                     D. State Agency Jurisdictions                ................................................................................................ 40
                            1. Legislative        ................................................................................................................... 40

                                                                                  vii









                            2. Rulemaking          ................................................................................................................ 40
                     E. County Jurisdictions             ......................................................................................................... 40
                     F. Municipal Jurisdictions             ..................................................................................................... 41
                     H. Environmental Planning of Onshore Activities
                            and Offshore Impacts              .................................................................................................... 42

                  VI. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY AND PROGRAM CONSIDERATION                                                          ......................... 42

                     A. The Dilemma of Federal Consistency with State
                               Artificial Reef Plans (State Plans)               ........................................................................... 42
                     B. Federal Consistency under the Coastal Zone
                                      Management Act             ............................................................................................... 43
                            1. Variations in CZM approaches                    .............................................................................. 44
                     C. Other Federal Linkages to State
                            Artificial Reef Programs             ............................................................................................... 44
                            1. NEPA requirements               ................................................................................................. 45
                     D. Special Management Concerns                     ...................................................................................... 45
                            1. Mitigation banking and artificial reef habitat                      ...................................................... 46
                            2. Habitat restoration            .................................................................................................... 47
                                      a. micro-estuaries         .............................................................................................. 47
                                      b. coastal lagoons and salt ponds                 .................................................................... 48
                            3. Coral reef management                ........................................................................................... 49
                            4. Special management zones (SMZs)                       ...................................................................... 50


                  VII. REFERENCES                .................................................................................................................... 51



                  APPENDIX I. NATIONAL FISHING ENHANCEMENT ACT                                                   ....................................... 64


                  APPENDIX II. RESOLUTIONS OF THE ATLANTIC STATES
                                      MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RELATIVE
                                      TO ARTIFICIAL REEF DEVELOPMENT                                 ...................................................... 72


















                                                                                 viii










                                                  LIST OF FIGURES



                                                                                                      Laa
             Figure 1.     Comprehensive Planning for Aquatic Habitat
                           Development and Management          .................................................................... 20








































                                                           ix











             I. INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE ARTIFICIAL REEF
             PLANNING



             A. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission


                    The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) was
             established in 1942 to represent collectively the marine fisheries needs and interests
             of all Atlantic coast states from Maine to Florida, including Pennsylvania. Over its
             fifty-year existence, the Commission has attempted to identify and respond to those
             commercial and recreational fishery management issues warranting state, regional,
             and national attention. The Commission's Artificial Reef Committee is one
             example of this commitment to Atlantic coast fishery management.
                    The Commission has been involved in assisting Atlantic coast member states
             with artificial reef m4iiagement issues since 1987, when it created the Artificial Reef
             Advisory Committee. The Commission has issued several reports which address
             the needs of artificial reef management along the eastern seaboard. McGurrin et al.
             (1988, 1989a) in a Commission study of Atlantic artificial reef development
             acknowledged the need to develop systematic regional, state, and local artificial reef
             plans.    The Commission further recognized the priority need for artificial reef
             planning in Murray's (1989) assessment of Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Artificial
             Reef Programs, along with Reeff et al.'s 1990 recommendations on state artificial reef
             management.


                    1. Basis of involvement
                    The National Fishing Enhancement Act (NFEA) of 1984 (33 U.S.C.A. 2103, et
             seq.) was enacted to provide guidance to coastal states in the preparation of state
             artificial reef plans. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was given the
             responsibility for implementing the NFEA. In 1985, NMFS (Department of
             Commerce 1985) exercised this responsibility by publishing the National Artificial
             Reef Plan (National Plan). This document focused on the procedures that states
             should undertake to plan for the deployment of artificial reef structures or
             complexes. The completion of the National Plan was an essential first step towards
             achieving a nationwide approach to artificial reef planning. Since publishing the
             National Plan in 1985, NMFS has provided minimal guidance for the development
             of artificial reef plans by coastal states. Yet, the need exists for coastal states to be able
             to secure reliable planning guidance from federal or regional sources.
                    According to Reeff et al. (1990), of the fourteen Atlantic coastal states, eleven
             have a documented record of artificial reef development activity, while only nine








              have sponsored programs. It has become apparent since issuance of the National
              Plan that some Atlantic coast states have had various difficulties in preparing their
              respective state plans. This observation is made because some states still do not
              have a plan. The obstacles to preparation are usually because of insufficient funding
              to support program development, or from a lack of expertisein the preparation of a
              plan. There is a significant degree of variation amongst the topics addressed for
              some Atlantic coast states that have a plan in progress, or -completed (New York,
              New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida). The levels of
              planning guidance provided for in these documents varies as well.                       The
              Commission is responding to the need for planning guidance for two essential
              reasons: (1) to provide a document that provides topical and procedural guidance to
              states in the preparation or revision of state plans; and (2) to advance the level of
              planning activities to involve a comprehensive or systematic approach to state and
              regional artificial reef planning activities.


              B. Habitat Typology

                     This guide is essentially directed at the development of artificial reefs. The
              use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) is discussed briefly. The language of the
              NFEA of 1984 identified both artificial reefs and FADs as being "structures," and as
              noted by McGurrin et al. (1988), "they remain part of reef technology."
                     One of the basic concerns reflected by various participants in state artificial
              reef development (McGurrin et al. 1988) is that artificial reefs may be too effective as
              fish aggregators. The attraction of fish to a single location provides an easier
              opportunity to harvest these fish in greater numbers than nature might otherwise
              offer. Without a clear biological understanding of the harvest pmssure that some
              species presently experience, the artificial reef process might create a setting for
              overfishing, therefore contributing to a further decline of fishery resources.
                     It is a clear responsibility that faces fishery managers, especially in light of the
              demise of the New England groundfish fishery, that efforts must be taken to
              understand the results of U.S. fishing pressures. The need exists to carefully
              monitor fishing activities to ensure that stocks are not suffering irreparable declines.
              Management by state and federal agencies, as well as by regional fishery
              management councils, must be sensitive to the acquisition of reliable data to
              provide guidance in the management of finite aquatic resources. Regulatory bodies
              must be able to respond quickly to the need to allocate or restrict particular fisheries
              with gear restrictions, or with size and creel limits. The jurisdictional conflict (as
              discussed in detail later in this guide) that arises when states plan and deploy

                                                           2








            artificial reef materials in federal waters, but have no regulatory authority in the
            federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ), heightens the need for clear and effective
            communications between all manager and participant groups involved.


                   1. Artificial reefs
                   Marine artificial reefs consist of man-made or natural materials that are
            deployed in coastaLand marine waters to attract or enhance various species of
            sessile, vagrant and pelagic marine organisms. Artificial reefs may be developed as
            bottom or benthic reefs. Reef materials also can be designed as mid-profile
            structures which are intended to attract both demersal and pelagic species, or may be
            designed to penetrate the entire water column. Generically, artificial reefs provide
            multiple resource opportunities, including: (1) enhancing production of fish and
            epifauna, (2) serving as an attractor within the marine environment, and (3)
            contributing to marine biodiversity. Artificial reefs also provide protective settings
            for marine animals.
                   The issue of production is variable, depending upon the location of a reef.
            For example, the biological productivity of an artificial reef situated within the
            shallow confines of an estuary will differ from reef materials sited in an open
            marine setting. It is generally accepted that marine artificial reefs serve as an
            effective attractor of numerous fish species. Food sources are provided by epifauna
            which attach to the reef, as well as by upwelled flows that are generated by the
            structure. In the latter situation, nutrients are lifted off bottom sediments into the
            surrounding water column, providing food for fish situated leeward (down-flow) of
            the artificial reef.
                   As artificial reefs extend off the ocean floor into the water column, they create
            disruptions within passing ocean currents. Klima and Wickham (1971) and
            Ranasinghe (1981) proposed a thigmotrophic value of artificial reefs. These authors
            noted that artificial reefs provide a focus or point of aggregation because fish are
            attracted to structures for orientation or navigation purposes. Alevizon and
            Gorham (1989) suggested another reason for attraction that "rapid redistribution of
            adult fishes to colonize newly deployed artificial reefs occurs primarily because some
            reef fishes have a strong innate tendency to disperse, combined with a strong innate
            behavioral preference for reef-like habitats with low fish density." In other words,
            some fish prefer less crowded conditions.

                   2. Fish aggregating devices (FADs)
                   Fish aggregating devices consist of single or multiple floating structures
            (Samples and Hollyer 1989) that are connected to the ocean floor by ballast or
            anchors. FADs are designed to provide surface area at a designated height above the
            oceans floor, or below the ocean's surface (depending upon ocean depth at the

                                                       3








             location where the FADs are deployed). Usually prefabricated, FADs are designed to
             attract pelagic species (Klima and Wickham 1971, Parker et al. 1974). Deployment
             can be in pre-arranged alleys (rows) or in random patterns (Beets 1989, Rountree
             1989).
                    Although FADs have had varying levels of success in near and offshore
             applications, they have been effective in attracting pelagics (Foster and Fowler 1992).
             However, FADs are not entirely free of criticism. Conflicts with other bottom or
             mid-depth uses are possible -and should be considered. Another major criticism is
             that FADs are usually constructed of materials that have a short survival time once
             deployed (Foster and Fowler 1992).


             C. History of the Artificial Reef Planning Process

                    Artificial reefs have been used in the United States for more than a century
             (Stone 1985, McGurrin et al. 1989a). The utility of materials deployed as artificial
             reefs became a fisheries management issue during the mid-1960s (Carlisle et al. 1964,
             Turner et al. 1969). It was not until the mid-1970s that the first real examination of
             artificial reef planning considerations took place (Parker et al. 1974). Site selection
             criteria became the focus of planning efforts during the early 1980s (Mathews 1979,
             Mathews 1981, Myatt 1981). Until this time, artificial reef development was
             essentially a grassroots effort promoted by local fishing clubs and private
             individuals, with minimal or non-existent guidance from state or federal
             authorities. Recent research has identified various process elements, including state
             program strengths and weaknesses, that are useful in understanding reef planning
             needs (McGurrin and the Commission's Artificial Reef Committee 1988, Murray
             1989).
                    The body of literature which addresses the artificial reef planning process is
             rather limited. The passage of the NFEA, the development of the National Plan
             (Department of Commerce 1985) and the Sport Fishing Institute'.,; Artificial Reef
             Planning Guide (Ditton and Burke 1985) established a more formalized approach to
             artificial reef planning. In 1986, Gordon and Ditton provided an overview to
             project-level planning. In another 'planning' discussion, Bell (1986)) identified the
             need for long-range planning by stating that "in most cases, long-term planning and
             attempts to manage artificial reef utilization have been nonexistent." Bohnsack and
             Sutherland (1985) also noted the lack of comprehensive planning strategies up until
             this period of time. Internationally, Grove et al. (1989) provided a useful discussion
             of reef planning applications in Japan. According to Gordon (1994), "there have
             been no substantive discussions since the mid-1980s which build upon these initial

                                                        4








            planning contributions."



            D. Locational Considerations


                   The placement of marine artificial reefs in the United States has traditionally
            been undertaken with little regard for optimal siting. Optimal siting requirements
            can be separated into two classes: (1) human uses; and (2) designating a reef site as a
            sanctuary or refuge to benefit either marine species at that reef site, or at natural or
            artificial sites which are located in immediate proximity.
                   Artificial reefs designated for human use can be broken down into several
            sub-groups which include (1) recreational anglers, (2) recreational divers, (3)
            party/charter boat anglers, (4) commercial fishermen. The location of deployment
            for artificial reefs should also be based on (1) minimizing conflict between user
            groups, (2) enhancing natural systems whenever possible, (3) deploying structures
            based upon factors of safety, where (a) natural systems are located at minimal risk
            from the placement, and (b) user safety is assessed based upon levels of: user
            experience, marine capabilities of their craft, onshore access infrastructure, and
            safety response capabilities. Placement of artificial reef materials in either state or
            federal waters requires similar federal scrutiny from those federal agencies identified
            in Section V.: jurisdictions.


                   1. State marine waters
                   State marine waters traditionally extend from the low water mark to a
            distance of three nautical miles from shore. This delineation was granted under
            provisions of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C.A. 1301 et seq.). The
            Florida West Coast has a state offshore boundary of three marine leagues or nine
            nautical miles from shore (10.2 statute miles, based upon Spanish submerged lands
            law, and recognized under provisions of the Submerged Lands Act). Features of the
            state marine environment may include "internal waters," such as large and small
            estuaries or embayments, micro-estuaries and barrier island lagoons, as well as
            offshore waters situated adjacent to the seaward coast of barrier islands.
            Demographically, these waters may be situated adjacent to rural areas of a state's
            shoreline as well as along urban waterfronts.


                   2. Federal marine waters
                   Various provisions of the NEFA, as highlighted in the National Plan,
            provided an incentive for coastal states and private parties to plan the development
            of artificial reefs on nearshore areas of the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
            This relationship represents an opportunity for states to operate in what has

                                                       5



'A









              otherwise been an exclusive federal domain (Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of
              1953, as amended in 1978, 43 U.S.C.A. 1331 et seq.). The- essential drawback of the
              NFEA to states locating artificial reefs on the OCS is that, although they can plan and
              execute the deployment of reef materials, they have no inherent authority to
              manage the fishery resources that are attracted to or produced on these artificial
              aquatic habitats.
                     The federal government maintains the right of management of these waters
              for economic reasons. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),extends seaward from
              three nautical miles from shore to a distance of two hundred nautical miles. This
              demarcation was established under provisions of the Magnuson Fishery
              Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended, (16 U.S.C.A. 1801-1882).
              The federal control of this offshore region is exercised primarily for reasons relating
              to fishing, mineral extraction and rights of navigational passage. Management of
              the fisheries resources of this area falls under the purview of the Regional Fishery
              Management Councils established by the Act.


              E. The Need for Comprehensive and Systematic Planning

                    In a review of artificial reef planning literature, Gordon (1994) concluded that
              state-level artificial reef planning has been primarily a site-sl ecific process.
              Although planning beyond site conditions has been recognized by many (Parker et
              al. 1974, Mathews 1981, Myatt 1981, Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985, Ditton and
              Burke 1985, U.S . Department of Commerce 1985, Bell 1986, Gordonand Ditton 1986,
              and Grove et al. 1989), there has been little effort to provide a comprehensive and
              systematic approach to tl-ds marine resource management issue.
                    The irony to date is that the incremental placement, site by site, of designated
              reef materials results in artificial reef deployments having statewide or regional
              dimensions. Yet, the level of planning devoted to many of these efforts emphasizes
              the viability of single or multiple reef sites, rather than providing a comprehensive
              planning framework where statewide or regional habitat implications are
              emphasized. Management issues within artificial reef research typically focus on
              reef site biology, user profiles, economic assessments, etc., often failing. to address
              broader dimensions. A broader analysis in this case would include (1) the typology
              and quantity of materials to be placed off state coastlines, (2) the nature of systematic
              benefits to aquatic habitat and human users, and (3) delineating the potential
              liabilities of this approach when optimal ecological and user benefits are not
              achieved. Effective management tools are available to facilitate systematic or
              comprehensive approaches to artificial reef planning and management. Systems-

                                                         6








            wide management can be accommodated by the use of Geo         graphical Information
            Systems (GIS) technology and program evaluatio@ methodologies (Gordon 1994).
                  The value of site or project-based planning is not abandoned in a
            comprehensive framework. Emphasis is placed on the utility of site-based planning
            within a broader, comprehensive context. In this application, the incremental
            results of site-by-site deployments are considered up front, and not as an
            afterthought to the process. Site-based and comprehensive/ systematic. planning are
            intended to complement one another, rather than compete for pre-eminence with
            each other.


                  1. Site aspects
                  During the 1980s a significant effort was devoted to addressing site planning
            requirements for artificial reef development. A planning framework emphasizing a
            project-level approach to artificial reef development was developed by Ditton and
            Burke (1985) and Gordon and Ditton (1986). This approach was modified from an
            environmental planning framework develope    'd by Erickson (1979). The Ditton and
            Burke (1985), Sport Fishing Institute publication provided the first real in-depth
            guidance for those planning issues related to site-specific deployments of reefs.
            Gordon and Ditton (1986) reviewed the implications of site or project planning from
            a broader fisheries management perspective. They noted that planning for artificial
            reef development generally consists of a project approach at all levels of
            government.

                  2. Regional and state-level planning
                  The Atlantic coast states of New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, South
            Carolina, and Florida each have a state plan. There is little consistency between
            these respective efforts. An argument can be made that reef planning efforts should
            represent a consistent approach as many of the species that enter each state's waters
            are transboundary and may be adversely impacted by a lack of coordinated planning
            and management. A regional approach may be warranted in some instances where
            oceanic conditions (colder northern waters versus warmer southern waters) may
            result in reef management needs by the respective species that inhabit these waters.


            F. The Importance of Policy Guidance to this Process

                  This guide is organized into separate topical headings, with each containing a
            discussion of an artificial reef program element. A policy guidance statement is also
            provided highlighting those policy elements or considerations that should be
            addressed in most state plans. The policy statement is an important means of

                                                     7








              implementing those elements that are presented and discussed in a state plan. Most
              importantly, this requires states to make an operational interpretation of the topical
              issue and to provide guidance on how this topic will be addressed in respec              tive
              planning efforts. As discussed in greater detail in Section III. C., most state. plans
              provide anecdotal or encyclopedic background on topical applicatiorl experiences in
              other states. These discussions usually do not provide the necessary substantive
              guidance, nor provide a basis for comprehensive or applied understanding, on how
              various topics should operate within a state plan. Without direction, plans become
              mere static reports, lacking the dynamic elements that are often required to allow
              planning to be a rational choice over future actions. The exercise of planning
              facilitates the decision-making process, but does not always guarantee that sound
              decisions will be made. This inherent weakness is attributable to the political
              vagaries of the decision-making process.


                     Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                            A comprehensive statement on how policy elements are identified and
                            implemented within the state plan. This statement should also reflect
                            on when and how a review and modification of procedures would be
                            undertaken.



              II. STATE PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES



              A. The Need for Goals and Objectives

                     In planning, goals usually represent desired or intended conditions. It is
              generally accepted that artificial reefs serve as important habitat for sessile and
              mobile marine species, providing social, economic and environmental benefits to
              various user groups. Value or outcome statements are often used in establishing
              planning goals. Delineating a precise value of importance for an artificial reef is a
              variable, and ultimately debatable, undertaking. Dependent upon location, it is
              difficult to resolve a reef's ability to attract marine species versus its ability to
              produce (enhance) marine life. Furthermore, intended levels of biological and
              socio-economic success may be adversely impacted from overfishing by conflicting
              user groups, etc. (Reeff et al. 1990).



                                                            8








                   A goal statement for benefits derived by users or the       ''marine ecosystem
            should be broad in context and have an enduring temporal quality. Goal statements
            in any plan, no matter how broad or idealistic, provide necessary guidance for
            interpreting the intent of the plan. This guidance can facilitate decision-making
            opportunities related to the plan, provide a basis of interpretation should any of the
            plan elements be challenged, and establish guidelines for subsequent evaluation of
            biological or program success.
                   Artificial reefs should facilitate the opportunity to:
                   (1) enhance fishery resources for recreational and commercial users;
                   (2) distribute fishing pressure within the near and offshore environment,
                       therefore reducing potential use conflicts;
                   (3) provide recreational and commercial access to fishery resources;
                   (4) be a tool to conserve or protect fishery resources;
                   (5) minimize environmental risks to users and the environment.

                   Finally, the goals for developing artificial reefs may include economic
            incentives that are based on user and habitat values. Evander (1985) noted that the
            community of Freeport, Texas identified artificial reef development as a means to
            diversify their local economy. These individuals, without outside assessment,
            recognized direct linkages between the volume of recreational fishing trips and
            related tourism benefits. The development of artificial reefs was identified as a
            means of directing new monies into their community.


            B. Program Goals for Marine Recyeational Fisheries

                   State plans should address the divergent needs of the marine recreational
            fishing community.      Plans should address enhancing the opportunities for
            shoreline access in both urban and rural settings, noting safety and water quality
            concerns. Plans must also address the needs of nearshore (0 to 3 miles), inshore (3 to
            10 miles), and offshore (greater than 10 miles from shore) anglers. Program goals
            should meet the multiple needs of inexperienced as well as experienced anglers, the
            needs of casual versus avid participants, as well as the specialized needs of
            tournament angling (Christian and Trimm 1985, Gordon 1993, Gordon 1994).
            Conservation of fishery resources, access and safety considerations, and ability to
            secure conflict resolution are often goals associated with artificial reef development
            intended for marine recreational angler benefits.




                                                      9








             C. Program Goals for Marine Sport Diving

                    State plans should address the needs of the sport diving community to
             enhance diving opportunities for enthusiasts of varying experience levels. Sport
             diving can represent a significant expenditure into a local tourism-based economy
             and should represent a thoughtful effort in considering the needs of a resident and
             non-resident diving community.. Assigned reef locations can provide a safe or low-
             risk enviroru-nents, promote access, and minimize conflicts with ottler users, while
             offering various levels of challenge for divers who spearfish, engage in underwater
             photography or dive for sport or pleasure purposes only. Local and state economic
             benefits may be derived from the growth of a local sport diving industry. Sport
             diving is an essential source of demand for many artificial reef development
             activities (Schwartz 1980).


             D. Program Goals for Marine Commercial Fisheries

                    Although commercial fishery applications are more adequately addressed in
             foreign settings, declining U.S. stocks should provide impetus for state and federal
             authorities to examine the use of artificial reefs as a tool for comme:rcial fishing. In
             northern states, state plans can address the potential for designing benthic lobster
             habitat to provide a safe haven for juveniles, while allowing commercial harvest of
             appropriately sized lobsters. Harvests for mussels, oysters, and urchins, as well as
             targeting for underutilized species could also be associated with the development of
             artificial reefs for commercial applications.
                    A final commercial fisheries goal might include the assessment and
             enhancement of artificial reefs within a planned offshore area to accommodate the
             growth of the party and charter boat industry. With proper marketing, additional
             demand for access to marine recreational fisheries may provide an alternative
             source of employment for individuals displaced from other sectors of commercial
             fisheries because of restrictions, allocations, closures and econornic conditions.
             Proper assessment of this industry's growth capacity (party and charter boat) would
             be required to ensure that additional activity would not displace current entrants
             and place this fishery at risk because of overfishing.


             E. Program Goals for Marine Resources/Sanctuaries

                   To date, the utility of artificial reef development as a management tool
             within federal marine sanctuaries has not been recognized (U.S. Department of

                                                       10









             Commerce 1992, 1991, 1980). The use of pre-designed, pre-fabricated artificial          reefs
             which complement the natural aquatic setting could be used to mitigate impacts to
             natural reef sites from hook and line fisheries, such as accumulation of terminal
             gear (lost lures, line, etc.). Impacts to natural reefs from boat anchoring could be
             reduced by deploying artificial reefs that have attachment capabilities (anchoring
             buoys). Artificial reefs could provide additional enhancement or recruitment to
             natural reefs located in sanctuaries having a ban on all fishing activities.


             F. Management Tool for Reef Stocks

                    Artificial reef development can be a useful tool in managing various fish
             stocks. Sport and commercial fishing pressure on natural reefs, such as coral reef
             structures can be redistributed to artificial structures deployed nearby. Inshore
             nurseries situated within estuarine confines, can be restored or enhanced by the
             design and placement of structures intended solely for habitat use by juvenile fishes
             (with all fishing banned). The development of artificial habitat to augment natural
             fisheries productivity must be realized in inshore settings, as well as near and
             offshore environments. Artificial reefs can be used as an effective tool for in-kind
             and out-of-kind mitigation (impacts to reefs and other habitats such as wetlands,
             respectively). This requires careful consideration of why and how artificial reefs
             should be used as a mitigative alternative.




                    Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                           The identification of all possible and realistic application goals of
                           artificial reefs. Provide associated background discussion that explains
                           supportive "why," "how," "where," and by "whom" elements.

                           An inventory of all unacceptable applications, with supportive
                           justification.

                           A basis of citizen input or participant in the creation and review of any
                           policy statements.

                           A periodic review of goals to accommodate any temporal changes in
                           philosophy or approach to the development and management of
                           artificial reefs.










             Ill. PLANNING FRAMEWORKS


             A. National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984

                    The National Fishing Enhancement Act (NEFA) of 1984 (33 U-S.C.A. 2103, et
             seq.), contained in Appendix 1, represented a milestone in the planning of artificial
             reefs in the United States. Elements recognized in Section 202 (a)(5) include:
                    (1) the importance of using artificial reefs to enhance aquatic habitat and
                        biodiversity of fishery resources to meet the public demand for a
                        declining resource;
                    (2) the importance of enhancing recreational and commercial fishing
                        opportunities;
                    (3) the need to increase the production of fishery products for economic gain;
                    (4) the need to increase energy efficiency of recreational and commercial craft
                        as they fish upon marine waters by conserving fuel through the
                        thoughtful placement (spatial efficiency) of artificial habitat.
             Section 203 placed an emphasis on using the best scientific information available,
             where "artificial reefs shall be sited and constructed, and subsequently monitored
             and managed in a manner which will --                                                             I
                    (1) enhance fishery resources to the maximum extent practicable;
                    (2) facilitate access and utilization by United States recreational and
                        commercial fishermen;
                    (3) minimize conflicts among competing uses of waters covered under this
                        title and the resources in such waters;
                    (4) minimize environmental risks and risks to personal heaLth and
                        property; and
                    (5) be consistent with generally accepted principles of international law and
                        shall not create any unreasonable obstruction to navigation."
             These two sections present a comprehensive range of concerns. Yet, the language of
             the Act uses the action term "shall" to infer its intent and meaning, implying that
             states are to implement this process to the best of their ability. There are no
             guarantees that a state will even enter into such a planning process or devote critical
             attention to accomplishing the noted tasks.

                    1. National Artificial Reef Plan (National Plan)
                    The NEFA assigned responsibility to the NMFS to implement the provisions
             of the Act. The preparation of the National Plan was one of the primary directives
             of the legislation (U.S. Department of Commerce 1985). This document was written
             to provide general guidance on planning, siting, designing, permitting, installing
             and maintaining artificial reefs. Gordon (1994) suggested that the *11111ational Plan is

                                                        12









            most useful as a site or project planning document. The directives to USACE
            involvement in permitting are beneficial to provide a consistent level of review for
            regional offices. This language specified the range of USACE inquiry and
            involvement.



            B. Introduction to Statewide Planning of Marine Artificial Reef Habitat

                  This planning guide is not intended to address the adequacy or consistency of
            respective state plans. However, a cursory comparison of state plans reveals a lack
            of consistency between planning efforts. Much of this can be attributed to the
            absence of formal or operational planning expertise by state artificial reef program
            managers or consultants, as well as from limited funding to support state artificial
            reef planning activities.
                  Although some state plans address many of the issues dealt with in this
            planning guide, there is an inconsistent treatment as to the depth to which plans are
            operationally explained. Most of the state plans completed to date have focused
            primarily on site or project-level planning and are vague on program outcomes.
            Few plans coordinate the needs of offshore artificial reef planning with necessary
            onshore support infrastructure, noting deadline requirements. Gordon (1994)
            observed that "even more vague are the means to accomplish the outcomes." None
            of the state programs examined during the preparation of this guide were explicit on
            issues such as plan implementation, time management, and means of evaluating
            program outcomes. The need exists for states to review their respective plans
            periodically and amend them accordingly.


            C. Generic Elements in Planning

                  There are five fundamental steps in a generic planning process, which
            include (1) identifying the planning needs, (2) collecting relevant information and
            data, (3) developing a plan, (4) implementing the plan, and (5) evaluating the
            success of the plan. The following discussion reviews each of these planning
            elements.
                  STEP 1: In those situations where the planning environment is not familiar,
            the first step can be deceiving to the planner. The planning of artificial reefs is an
            effective example of the difficulties involved. For example, it is important to
            understand the various goals that may be associated with planning and deploying
            artificial reefs. Although goal statements may seem to be oversimplified, there is


                                                      13




 'A









              the need to establish a broad vision of what outcomes or conditions are desired at a
              future point in time. Another concern is that if goals statements &re not inclusive
              of all possibilities for planning, then it is almost certain that some potential user
              group may be overlooked for their future needs. It is at this juncture where the
              planning process needs to establish a proactive approach, as opposed to a reactive
              posture (Gordon and Ditton 1986). It is often difficult to retrofit a program to meet
              needs that should have been considered early on.
                     STEP 2: The second step, identifying the planning problems associated with
              establishing artificial reef habitat requires: 1) the determination of specific user
              needs; 2) an assessment of the various topical processes and related considerations
              involved; and 3) the identification of those management and administrative
              requirements that may be unique to artificial reef planning. A review of the topics
              contained in the table of contents of this document should provide basic insight into
              the complexity of undertaking a comprehensive approach to artificial reef planning.
                     The need to collect relevant information or data to support tl.-le development
              of an artificial reef plan is also of critical importance. The overall success of a plan is
              often dependent upon the thoroughness of the information upon which it is based.
              Often, this information or data is available from existing sources. The NMFS/ the
              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NOAA National Ocean Survey, state coastal
              zone management agencies or authorities, state marine fishery divisions and
              departments of economic development have information that is relevant to the
              creation or revision of a state plan. This guide provides sources of Jinformation and
              discusses various techniques where original or firsthand data may be required.
                     STEP 3: The third step of planning, plan development, can be threatened by
              creating a document that is too narrowly-focused or limited in its useful time frame.
              By using this guide as a reference, an individual should be able to review the basis of
              artificial reef planning elements, noting essential functional and operational
              characteristics. It is not expected that state plans should mirror one another, as is
              often done in various planning activities. Sometimes the planning staff does not
              have adequate time to plan "creatively" and is placed in a situation where it
              examines other plans to obtain guidance. This 'borrowing' process has inherent
              risks, especially when planning elements unique to one state may have no
              application in another. This guide is intended to reduce much of the start-up time
              that may be required of a staff in preparing an thorough and adequate state plan.
                     STEP 4: One of the most critical steps in planning involves the
              implementation of a plan. This is where planning often fails miserably. Confusion
              often exists as to what exactly is being implemented, and how it is to be
              implemented. Other confusing aspects include the jurisdictional responsibility of
              who administers the plan and operational program, and the spatial boundaries of
              where the program operates. Again, this guide addresses these elements.

                                                          14









                   STEP 5: Finally, the planning question should be posed as to whether or not
            respective planning goals were met. This element is often missing in planning
            efforts. In the application of artificial reef planning, the issue of program success has
            often been muddled by monitoring or regulatory requirements, or has been justified
            solely on an economic or biological basis. Most state plans are directed to site or
            project-level activities, where economic, biological and monitoring assessments are
            appropriate. The generic steps in planning do not address the level at which
            planning occurs. This guide challenges the traditional applications of artificial reef
            planning to a higher level of sophistication where issues are considered within a
            systematic and comprehensive framework.                Correspondingly, evaluation
            capabilities must be able to determine whether the reef system located off a state's
            coastline is successfully meeting the multiple, and often complex program goals.
            The use of program evaluation methodologies are presented to address the needs of
            justifying the success of specific program elements as well as understanding the
            overall measures of success for an entire artificial reef program.
                   Another step typically omitted in the planning process is the objective
            periodic review of a plan. During this review process, constructive input is
            provided to the planner to facilitate a thorough and equal treatment of planning
            elements. This input is gained by implementing the public participation elements
            that are included in the planning process. This allows program participants and
            observers to identify issues needing further consideration or review. The weakness
            in this strategy is that participants may have a limited knowledge of planning issues
            or elements other than those that directly affect them. Often, these issues are not
            brought to the attention of the planner, when in fact they should have been.
                   Although, an outside review may be necessary to involve other artificial reef
            planners, the use of outside consultants is cautioned. These individuals may lack
            expertise or available time to conduct a thorough review. A careful review of
            consultant qualifications is recommended. Most artificial reef planning to date has
            been conducted within state agencies, with only a limited number of consultants
            being involved.

                   1. Plan development
                   The development of a plan often represents a formalized reaction to a given
            problem. Although usually applied in a reactive setting, the utility of planning is
            the proactive ability to foresee potential problems (Gordon and Ditton 1986). Plan
            development should be an ongoing dynamic process. The development of a plan is
            dependent upon sound and site-specific data.            Plenty of time, funding and
            appropriate staff should be made available to ensure that the planning process is
            timely and efficient. As the events that often initiate the development of a plan or

                                                       15








             sub-plan change, the plan should be periodically revisited to examine and u         pdate
             any sections that require modification. Although the worst possible aspect about
             planning is putting together an incomplete or inadequate plan, it is nearly as bad to
             have a plan that is outdated. Although certain plan elements, such as goals, may
             not be become immediately outdated, many program elements can change quickly,
             requiring frequent review.


             D. The Need for Plans to be Operational

                    A common weakness in most artificial reef plans is the lack of operational
             guidance. Specific guidance should be included in state plans to clearly identify the
             means by which plans will be implemented. Most plans contain background
             discussions on the importance of those planning elements that should be addressed
             in the state plan. The need for operational elements raises one of the principal
             dilemmas in planning: are plans merely procedural in their treatment of the topics
             at hand, or do they provide substantive guidance in the intE!rpretation and
             application of plan elements?        The discussion should concentrate on those
             functional elements contained in the plan, as opposed to a questionable dialog of
             what elements the plan should contain or dismiss, without sufficient treatment or
             justification. Often, the planning process does not provide insight into how these
             functional elements should be operationalized. In other words, are the issues that
             the plan addresses clearly stated in terms of their importance and reason for
             treatment, and is there sufficient information provided on how respective elements
             will be set into motion? This issue is addressed further in the implementation
             section below.



             E. Comprehensive and Systematic Planning

                    Most state plans are adequate in addressing site specific questions regarding
             artificial reef deployment, but these plans (with exception of language in the New
             Jersey plan; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 1987) never
             expand the planning horizon beyond site or project requirements. Gordon (1994)
             made the initial presentation that a broader planning framework must be developed
             to include comprehensive and systernatic elements. Gordon and Ditton (1986)
             noted that "there has been little, if any, recognition that planning activities vary, or
             can vary, within local, state and federal levels of government."



                                                        16








                   Gordon (1994) stated that an essential weakness in state artificial reef planning
            is its reliance on a reactionary and opportunistic process that is only implemented
            when reef construction materials become available. Materials of opportunity are
            still the most popular source of reef construction supplies in the United States
            (Phillips 1988, McGurrin et al. 1989b, Murray 1989). In a study of state artificial reef
            programs, Bell (1986) concluded that reef programs are predominately dependent
            upon using discarded scrap materials. Bell (1986) also observed that "long range
            planning and accomplishment of specific design goals for reefs or systems of reefs
            are next to impossible, as the availability and quality of suitable scrap materials is
            unpredictable."    An analysis of alternative reef deployment locations should be
            considered during the creation or review of state reef programs, according to a pre-
            determined classification of likely and acceptable reef materials. Gordon (1994)
            concluded that this proactive element is currently missing in aquatic habitat
            development.
                   The following steps in the artificial reef planning process are modified from
            Gordon's (1994) adaptation of Catanese and Snyder's (1979) generic urban planning
            framework:
                   (1) "Aquatic habitat problems are identified and a statement of goals and
                       objectives (desired future conditions or outcomes) is produced.
                   (2) Inventories and analyses of existing natural and artificial habitats are
                       undertaken. Conflicts of use are identified and noted spatially.
                       Additional research to support constraint analysis and priority zone
                       allocation is completed.
                   (3) Alternative scenarios or problem solutions are devised.
                   (4) The artificial reef plan and supportive management program is drafted,
                       noting budgeting and implementation strategies.
                   (5) The state plan is implemented.
                   (6) Plan review and subsequent program evaluations of plan impacts or
                       results are conducted."
                   In  defining the application of concepts such as 'comprehensive' and
            /systematic' in planning artificial reefs, Gordon (1994) concluded that these terms
            have been misused in the context of artificial reef planning. Gordon relied on
            Branch's (1983) definition that: "comprehensive planning is planning for the
            totality rather than for one or several of its constituent parts." Branch (1983) noted
            that a systems approach can be applied in comprehensive planning; where the
            system, rather than a subsystem, considers the full range of its components and
            identifies those that are most important. In contrast, a subsystem plan would
            address several closely interdependent components. An artificial reef site plan as
            traditionally undertaken would represent a subsystem planning process.


                                                       17








                     Branch (1983) broke comprehensive planning into two forms of planning'
               which include functional and operational plans. Functional plans (a sub-plan) as
               applied to comprehensive artificial reef development would be designed to treat a
               single constituent element or functional activity, such as:
               - interagency coordination plan
               - mitigation banking plan                      - tournament fishing plan
               - shoreline access plan                        - special area management plan
               - coral reef impact plan                       - federal consistency plan
               - funding plan                                 - onshore infrastructure plan
               - program marketing plan                       - priority use or zoned plan
               - material acquisition plan                    - comprehensive evaluation plan
               - reef design plan                             - environmental impact plan
               - subsistence reef plan                        - research requirements plan
               - client use plan                              - habitat restoration plan
               - permitting plan                              - citizen participation plan
                     This random list represents some of      the functional topics that are presented
               and discussed in this document. Each of these program issues arE! deserving of a
               functional plan. Operational planning components are lesser in scope as they
               provide the specific and detailed guidance, which is necessary to implement
               functional planning elements.        These operational planning elements can be
               included at the end of each functional plan. It is the responsibility of the artificial
               reef planner to manage the multiple subcomponents of the COMPrE,hensive plan in
               a rational and analytical approach (Catanese and Snyder 1979). Gordon (1994) stated
               that "the comprehensive plan should address planning at the system, sub-system'
               and project-levels; as well as identify the functional or operational aspect of
               respective planning efforts."
                     Gordon (1994) adapted a programmatic planning schematic from Chapin and
               Kaiser (1979), to create a comprehensive planning paradigm which incorporated
               systematic concerns involving state or regional artificial reef development as a
               programmatic effort (Fig. 1). This hierarchical approach also emphasized the
               dynamics of planning, deployment, management and evaluation of artificial reefs as
               a holistic endeavor. McGurrin and Reeff (1986) noted the "social and economic
               benefits derived from the marine recreational fishing industry often go beyond the
               local community and bring prosperity to the region as a whole, it is important that
               reef siting plans reflect a state-wide (or even coast-wide) approach." This broadened
               approach should include onshore infrastructure and user considerations as well
               (Ditton, 1981; Gordon and Ditton, 1986). According to Gordon (1994) "it is the
               onshore infra-structural resource which provides and supports the opportunity for
               offshore reef development."


                                                          18












                   1. State
                   A statewide approach to artificial reef planning requires a comprehensive
            strategy to identify and plan reef opportunities within inshore waters. These waters
            include bays, estuaries, micro-estuaries, coastal ponds that are connected to the
            ocean, and other brackish or marine water environments. The inshore setting is
            distinguished by shoreline access from urban waterfronts, jetties, piers, fishing piers,
            bridges, and other accessible shoreline features. Near and offshore settings include
            those areas beyond three nautical miles from shore, which is typically under federal
            jurisdiction. Access to offshore artificial reefs is accommodated only by private craft,
            or by commercial party and charter boat operations. The cumulative total of
            artificial reefs deployed in these waters represents the state's "system" of artificial
            reef infrastructure. In this case, infrastructure refers to all deployed reef materials.
                   Onshore access and support infrastructure is also very important in the
            development of a systematic approach to artificial reef development. Access
            infrastructure refers to all means of access including the shoreline access features, as
            well as all public and private boat ramps, and private boat-hoist facilities, which are
            usually located at marinas. Highways or coastal roadways are important in
            establishing access to coastal fishing destinations (Ditton and Graefe 1978, Ditton and
            Auyong 1984, Gordon 1987, Gordon 1993). Parking facilities for individuals who
            trailer their craft are also an important component of access infrastructure. The size
            of parking lots or facilities is becoming an increasingly important consideration in
            many areas as shoreline access fishermen are often competing for parking spaces
            with their offshore counterparts. It is one thing to anticipate crowding conflicts on
            the water, yet it is somewhat unexpected for many areas to experience similar
            crowding issues on land. This essential management issue is addressed further in
            the subsistence fishery section.
                   Onshore support infrastructure is another important element in the success
            of a statewide artificial reef system. This type of infrastructure also supports offshore
            fishing activities through the availability of restaurants, groceries, hotels or other
            overnight accommodations, boat repair, fueling and pumpout facilities, marinas,
            bait and tackle, hospitals and medical clinics, as well as other important land-based
            services. Local tourism attractions are also beneficial to those family members
            visiting the coast that are not participating in fishing activities. It is the existence
            and type of onshore access and support infrastructure which facilitates or
            determines the success of the coastal and offshore artificial reef infrastructure.







                                                       19









              Figure 1. Comprehensive Planning for Aquatic Habitat Development                       and
                          Management.


              Inputs to Aquatic Habitat Planning-
                       - Commercial Fishermen
                       - Marine Recreational Fishermen
                       - State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
                       - State Artificial Reef Programs
                       - Interstate Marine Fishery Commissions
                       - Regional Fishery Management Councils
                       - National Marine Fisheries Service
                       - Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)
                       - Legislative Inputs
                       - judicial Mandates

              Planning Frameworks:

                                      Spatial Aspect                Programmatic Aspect

              Systematic ->           Regional or State             Habitat System Management
              Planning                Applications                  - Program Level Planning -
                                                                    Program and Socioeconomic
                                                                    Evaluation - GIS
                                                                    Applications (20-25 year
                                                                    horizon)

              Subsystematic           Bay, Estuary or               Operational Planning:
              Planning                Sub-State Area                Program and Socioeconomic
                                                                     Evaluation - Biolc)gical
                                                                    Assessment - Program
                                                                    Amendments - GIS
                                                                    Applications (3-5year
                                                                    horizon)

              Project ->              Local or Site                 Functional Planning:
              Planning                Planning                      Deployment with On-site
                                      Applications                  Biological Assessment of
                                                                    Single and Multiple Reef
                                                                    Structures - GIS
                                                                    Applications (annual
                                                                    horizon)

              source: Gordon, 1994.


                                                          20









                  2. Regional
                  Regional comprehensive planning would be undertaken by establishing
            cooperative agreements between respective adjoining coastal states. This would
            involve the joint management of deployed reefs in a boundary area delimiting state
            waters. This is especially important for those states that have either limited
            coastlines or extensive marine recreational fishing populations. This proactive
            arrangement is useful in avoiding any jurisdictional or site-based management
            conflicts. The three Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions provide the most
            effective fora for such cooperative planning efforts.



            F. Site-Based Planning

                Gordon (1994) defined project or site-specific planning to involve the planning,
            deployment, management and subsequent assessment of materials used to develop
            single or multiple artificial -eefs. As mentioned, site planning is synonymous
            with project-level plannir_@,. One of the more useful resource documents for site
            planning guidance can be secured from Ditton and Burke's (1985) Artificial reef
            development for recreational fishing: A planning guide. This guide provides a
            useful discussion of project-level planning, including advance planning, location
            and design considerations, permitting procedures, construction and deployment
            activities, operation and maintenance needs and project evaluation
            recommendations.
                  1. Single reef units
                  Single reef units may be placed within priority zones, as determined by the
            methods included in Section VIL The deployment of single reefs allows the
            distribution of available materials over a larger area, therefore avoiding possible
            crowding by recreational boat traffic over reef structures. Individual reef units
            should be pre-conceived in terms of what acceptable materials will be used, as well
            as the uniformity or homogeneity of selected materials. Profiles of individual reefs
            may be similar or irregular to attract selected or multiple fish species. Distances
            separating reefs should be at least 750 to 1,000 m. This is a maximum distance value
            where reef fish are able to migrate between submerged structures (Grove et al. 1989).
            These distances also allow widespread distribution of materials, if there are no
            conflicts with other bottom uses. Multiple deployments of single reef structures can
            also reduce surface crowding of recreational craft over submerged reefs.
                  2. Clustered reef units
                  Clustered reef units provide multiple fishing destinations within a common
            deployment area or priority zone. Minimum distances from associated reef
            structures should be at least 150 m., with maximum values at 300 m. This distance

                                                     21









              of separation will distribute boat crowding as well as generate optimal unrestricted
              movement between reefs in the cluster (Grove at al. 1989). Although recruitment
              will occur within single reef deployment distances of 1,000 m. (Grove et al. 1989),
              closer distance values allows more effective aggregation of fish between the
              clustered reef sites. The intended profiles, selection of materials, and respective size
              of deployed reefs should also be considered to maximize use potential within
              deployment zones.

              G. Implementation

                    Implementation elements are very im         portant within a comprehensive
              planning framework. It is not unusual to find operational or implementation
              elements missing from most project-level planning efforts. The value of a plan is
              not exclusive to the range of treated topics, but also addresses how these
              considerations are to be realized. These action elements are addressed in this
              publication by the inclusion of policy guidance statements at the bottom of selected
              functional planning elements.         Implementation components may also be
              accommodated by use of interagency memoranda of agreement, state or federal
              legislative requirements, or most likely by the use of agency rulemaking or
              regulatory authority. Although brief in treatment, being able to identify the means
              by which program or plan elements are to be implemented cannot be over-
              emphasized.



              H. Planning Time Frames

                    Planning time frames vary according to the type or level of planning
              involved. Traditional urban lanning utilizes both short and Ion! -term planning
                                             p                                      19                         1
              horizons (Chapin and Kaiser, 1979). The comprehensive plan typically involves a
              time frame of up to 20 or 25 years. Periodic evaluation is scheduled to identify and
              implement any program adjustments necessary as reflected at the systematic or sub-
              systematic level (Gordon 1994).         Any program amendments derived from
              evaluative criteria (biological, social/economic or program-based) can be
              implemented on an operational planning horizon of three to five years. Similarly,
              a three to five year horizon is recommended for sub-systematic or local level
              planning. Annual review cycles can also be used for reef program management as
              need occurs.






                                                        22









            1. Citizen Participation

                  Client and citizen participation is highly recommended in artificial reef
            development planning. Important inputs can be derived from initial client
            involvement, but this process must be carefully managed so as to avoid needless
            confrontation. Baseline data collection and surveys of targeted clientele should be
            undertaken with minimal involvement of the general public. This intentionally
            avoids generating multiple dialogues, yet provides an essential feedback process
            early on by those individuals most directly affected by artificial reef development
            activities. Surveys of recreational anglers, sport divers, charter and party boat
            operators, commercial finfish and lobster fishermen can provide valuable insight
            into client needs (Green et al. 1991). This also allows the reef planner to identify
            early on any potential for conflict between user groups, allowing the identification
            and implementation of strategies to resolve potential or existing user conflicts
            (including refuge or sanctuary considerations).
                  Surveys are most effective when administered in person, by conducting
            either workshops or site visits to dock locations, and provide a means of identifying
            client needs as well as delimiting where conflicts are likely to occur. (Data generated
            from this research is then applied in the constraint or exclusion mapping process
            discussed in Section VII). The overall emphasis is to minimize opposition as much
            as possible by involving client groups as stakeholders in the comprehensive
            planning process. When general public participation activities (hearings) are finally
            announced at the conclusion of (a) survey and workshops, and (b) priority zone
            planning activities involved in the constraint mapping process, it is anticipated that
            the process will be met with little public opposition. The two most beneficial issues
            to convey to the public during this process are the ecological and tourism-based
            economic components of artificial reef development activities.
                  In developing or amending a state plan, it is important to focus on individual
            or specific functional planning components that are maintained within the broader
            comprehensive framework. Relating the benefits of artificial reef development to
            the fishing and non-fishing public should be an ongoing activity in all coastal states.
            Reef developers in New Jersey, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas have effectively
            utilized television and press coverage to promote artificial reef development
            activities. The development of effective public information programs is essential in
            promoting citizen participation and accomplishing successful program
            development. Spencer and Spangler (1992) noted that "communication of ideas
            between fisheries managers and the public remains a crucial part of effective
            management."



                                                      23











                    Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                       ï¿½   Solicitation of public comments and participation in the artificial reef
                           planning process to the maximum extent practicable.              Realistic
                           opportunities must be provided.

                       ï¿½   Public participation in reef construction and deployment activities,
                           noting liabilities to personal injury or damages for providing labor
                           and/or equipment to support these reef activities.

                           Soliciting economic contributions to state artificial reef programs.

                           Assisting in any support services to the state artificial reef program.



             IV. APPLICATIONS OF MARINE ARTIFICIAL REEF HABITAT


             A. Section Overview: Clients of the Process


                    There are two basic client groups which are affected by artificial reef
             development: human, and natural users. Human users can be broken down further
             by gear type and motivation into recreational and commercial activities (Hahn
             1991). Recreational users include sport and tournament anglers as well as sport and
             tournament divers. Sport classes involve those casual and avid participants who
             undertake the recreation for personal satisfaction (Holland and Ditton 1992).
             Tournament classes involve those individuals, divers and anglers, who are
             participating in sport and professional tournament fishing (Christian and Trimm
             1985). Tournament fishermen generally have a higher level of motivation for
             catching larger fish than recreational anglers and divers (Loomis and Ditton 1987).
                    Commercial fishing activities include two basic groups: (1) charter, party or
             headboat fishing, and (2) commercial finfish and lobster fishermen. Although party
             and charter boat anglers are recreational in scope, the operation of the vessel is a
             commercial activity and can generate enough fishing pressure from one outing to
             severely deplete the fish resources of a specific artificial reef site. The management
             of reef resources may focus on the level of fishing pressure generated by recreational
             versus commercial activities. Commercial fishing also includes lineboats that target
             reef species or trawlers that work the periphery of a reef. Trap fisheries such as
             lobster and crab fisheries may also be included.

                                                       24









                  Fish and other sessile organisms are natural reef users. Because of present
            overfishing in many areas, there is a need to develop reef habitat for (1) recruitment,
            or (2) absolute refuge or sanctuary purposes. Reefs as habitat may allow the natural
            system to recharge itself from human use pressures. This action may assist in the
            productivity of reefs designated for human use, by directing fish migrants to targeted
            reef locations. Alternatively, reefs as sanctuaries may be planned so as to preclude
            any migration or recruitment to nearby structures used by humans.
                  Often, reef siting exercises intended for human use result in poorly utilized
            deployments. Targeted species and reef uses are best determined early in the
            planning process, and should not be a de facto or post hoc rationalization for
            explaining the failure of a reef, when inadequately sited for human use (Gordon and
            Ditton 1986). Suitable materials for reef construction are often difficult to acquire, so
            improper placement can result in a significant loss of potential habitat, especially
            when targeted for human use. Although an improperly targeted reef would result
            in benefits to the natural system as refuge, placement may not be optimal for
            sanctuary or recruitment purposes. The clients and their respective goals for the
            artificial reef planning process may at times appear to be contradictory to one
            another. The ecological and economic benefits attributable to each group varies and
            are a significant consideration when planning the allocation and placement of reef
            materials for human and natural reef users.



            B. Targeting Client Groups

                  The planning and design of artificial reefs can vary in terms of the number
            client groups using these reef structures. In any reef planning exercise, effort must
            be undertaken to identify prospective users (Ditton 1981, Myatt and Ditton 1986,
            Gordon and Ditton 1986) Artificial reefs may be deployed for use by recreational
            anglers, sport divers, and by party/charter boat operations, as well as various
            combinations of these user groups
            (Fedler and Ditton 1986). The distinction to be made in all cases is the need to
            reduce potential conflict.
                  Artificial reefs have been identified for their utility in reducing conflict
            between user groups (Phillips 1988, Samples 1989, Gordon 1994) as well as for
            distributing fishing pressure (Gordon 1994). Although methodological guidance in
            identifying the locational requirements of respective groups is presented and
            discussed in Section VII, the following discussion highlights those needs that may
            be investigated by the artificial reef planner when conducting supportive
            background research necessary for state plan development or revision.


                                                       25








              C. General Recreational Applications

                    Marine recreational anglers and divers participate in their respective sports
              for various personal reasons (Moeller and Engelken 1972, Fedler 11984, Fedler and
              Ditton 1986, Matlock et al. 1991, Holland and Ditton 1992, Spencer and Spangler 1992,
              Spencer 1993). The following subsections establish some of the client needs
              represented by recreational anglers and sport divers.
                    1. Angling
                    Marine recreational angling should be targeted for users having: (1) means of
              access to artificial reef opportunities, (2) levels of experience and related safety
              considerations, (3) target species requirements, as well as (4) types of motivation
              including tournament versus non-tournament sportfishing needs.                    These
              requirements are pursued at length with the subsequent discussions of shore-based
              subsistence fishing, and tournament angling and diving.
                    2. Diving
                    Over the past thirty years, reefs have grown in importance as 1 referred diving
              destinations (Schwartz 1980, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic         Councils 1982,
              Roberts and Thompson 1983, Milon 1989b, Stanley and Wilson 1989). Sport diving
              can represent a significant expenditure into a local tourist economy (Milon 1989b),
              and should be given adequate attention in the planning process. Artificial reefs,
              when intended for use by divers, should be designed and deployed according to (1)
              safety of design to avoid trapping or injury by the reef, (2) safe de- ths to consider
                                                                                    P
              decompression needs or standards, (3) water clarity or visibility, (4) water quality.
              Safety from other divers is a consideration with regards to regulating, limiting or
              banning the use of spearguns in harvesting reef fish.



              D. Fishing Tournaments

                    In recent decades, tournament fishing has represented a significant
              expenditure of money by marine recreational anglers, divers and commercial
              interests within the marine recreational fishing industry. According to Gordon
              (1993), the marine recreational travel behavior (distance travelled on water)
              exhibited by tournament anglers is significantly greater than that of the 'typical'
              marine recreational angler. Recreational and professional tournaments can have a
              significant impact on the distribution and population of fish caught within the
              fishing range of the tournament. This pressure is often dependent upon (1) the
              number of fishing tournaments hosted within a coastal state, (2) their frequency of
              occurrence, (3) the range of species targeted, (4) the disposition of fish (harvested or
              released), and (5) the general location of tournaments (situated neatr urban or rural

                                                        26









            population centers).     Although definitive biological research is lacking which
            describes the extent of impacts occurring from tournament activity, one anticipated
            result is that tournaments can reduce or relocate recreational fish stocks from
            commonly used fishing grounds.
                   Tournaments represent significant expenditures into local economies by
            ---@articipants and families (Christian and Trim 1985). Therefore, state artificial reef
            planning activities should take into consideration (1) the needs and demands of
            current state tournaments, and (2) plan for the future needs of this marine
            recreational activity. The use of artificial reefs can be an important tool in
            mitigating the potential conflict between daily users of a fishery resource and the
            infrequent intensive use represented by tournaments. Sport fishing tournaments
            can be used as a means of providing economic support to a state artificial reef
            program.
                   Artificial reefs shoui'd be used to distribute recreational (angling and diving)
            and tournament fishing pressure within a states coastal and offshore waters, thus
            minimizing potential conflict between these two major sportfishing activities.
            Although typical offshore travel distances of twenty to thirty miles offshore in the
            Gulf of Mexico have been identified for recreational anglers by various researchers
            (Ditton and Graefe 1978, Ditton and Fedler 1983, Myatt and Ditton 1985, Gordon and
            Ditton 1986, Gordon 1987, Gordon 1993), it is realistic to expect that many of the
            recreational anglers in the mid-Atlantic and especially the New England states
            travel a shorter distance offshore in pursuit of their fishing activity. This shorter
            travel distance would be attributable to a greater variation of water depth to distance
            offshore the Atlantic coast, in contrast to the general condition in the Gulf of Mexico
            where depth slowly increases with greater distances offshore.
                   Reefs deployed closer to shore generally will meet the habitat requirements of
            the recreational angler. Most existing artificial reef plans in the Atlantic States
            region accommodate this user group. None of the plans effectively addressed reef
            deployment for tournament divers and anglers. In a tournament application,
            artificial reef structures should be placed either (1) farther offshore, or (2) closer to
            rural coastlines that are situated farther away from urban centers. Gordon (1993)
            found that tournament anglers will travel significantly greater marine distances in
            pursuit of 'trophy' size fish. Placement of artificial reef materials for tournament
            versus non-tournament anglers is recommended. It is likely that traditional angler
            may not make the extra effort to travel farther by car or by boat, especially if they
            know their original (closer) destinations will provide them some level of fishing
            success.
                   The motivation of the tournament angler is to seek less frequented locations
            so that the likelihood of catching a trophy size fish will increase (because of a lack of


                                                       27








             fishing pressure). Placing reef materials in remote areas can also provide refuge to
             those fish when tournament or avid anglers are not present. Finally, from an
             economic perspective, deployment of artificial structures can provide the necessary
             conditions for successful tournaments, generating fishing satisfaction amongst
             participants, and economic satisfaction with the local business community.


             E. Subsistence Fishing

                    Shore-based subsistence fishing is becoming an increasingly important topic
             on the state fisheries management agenda. For years a certain level of subsistence
             fishing has taken place along coastal waters where economically disadvantaged
             individuals have used their fishing as a means of providing food for their
             households. In the last decade, recent immigrants from Southeast Asia have
             provided a new dimension to subsistence fishing. To the Southeast Asian family,
             the catch has both a cultural and nutritional importance.          These combined
             subsistence fishing pressures in urban and rural contexts place a need for creative
             response from the artificial reef planning community.
                   Section 203 of the NEFA addressed the issue of recreational fishing access to
             fishery resources as an important consideration in the artificial reef planning
             process. Shore-based recreational fishing access is accommodated by, the existence of
             bridges, jetties, urban waterfronts, legal ways of access to the shoreline, or by the
             development of fishing piers. The existence of piling supports or rip-rap structure  s
             for some of these shore-based destinations provides a de facto reef system. Marine
             epifauna and other sessile organisms attach themselves to these structures and fish
             are subsequently attracted to these locations.       Sometimes, the placement of
             additional reef materials may enhance shore-based opportunities. Design and
             placement considerations become important management concerns                       as
             supplemental structures can accumulate terminal fishing gear, such as lost lures and
             line (Buckley and Walton 1981, Buckley 1982).
                   As polluted urban waters become cleaner from legislative and regulatory
             actions, such as pending amendments to the Clean Water Acts arid existing land-
             based environmental planning regulatory activities with the U.S. Environmental
             Protection Agency and Office of Coastal Resource Management's Nonpoint Source
             Pollution Programs (commonly referred to as the '6217 Program' - United States
             Environmental Protection Agency 1993), a greater opportunity, exists to plan
             artificial reef programs within the urban setting (Leedy et al. 1981), The placement
             of artificial reefs near designated fishing and abandoned waterfront piers can
             enhance the fishing enviroru-nent. Buckley and Walton (1981) noted that placement

                                                      28








            of materials can occur such that only a portion of the reef fish population can be
            reached by pier anglers. In this type of application a nearby complex would be
            situated out of range of the pier anglers, allowing migrant fish to move between the
            pier and reef complex, allowing these fish to be targeted as opposed to attracting all
            fish to within the catch-range of pier anglers.
                  Buckley and Walton (1981) commented on the importance of having effective
            pier fishery management practices in place. They observed that general fishery
            regulations on bag limits, size limits and gear restrictions are typically based on the
            fish population dynamics and biological trends of larger areas and may not be
            modified to the limited area represented by the urban pier or access point. Buckley
            and Walton (1981) stated that "for many species these generalized regulations are
            too liberal to sustain a harvest from a fishing pier." Bag limits and size limits can
            help to alleviate marine recreational by-catch impacts (the harvest, subsequent
            mortality, and disposal of undesired species), as well as impacts to the juveniles of
            desired recreational fishes. In some situations they advised the closure of a
            significant area adjacent to all other fishing, in this case from marine recreational
            boaters, so that a sustained harvest for pier anglers is maintained.
                  The ongoing restoration of our marine coastal waters creates an additional
            consideration for state artificial reef planners to evaluate. The quality of marine
            waters may cause urban fishing and artificial reef planners to evaluate the safety of
            those fish consumed by the subsistence angler. There may be existing restrictions on
            the recommended numbers of fish that should be consumed when caught in
            contaminated waters. The deployment of artificial reef habitat into polluted waters
            is not recommended as individuals may be consuming contaminated fish. The U.
            S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains an on-line computer access system
            which identifies areas with fish consumption bans (U. S. Environmental Protection
            Agency 1992). This system is generally accessible to the public and should be
            subscribed to. Although this may not interrupt artificial reef development planning
            within the urban waterfront setting, it may establish a temporal element of when an
            artificial reef should be constructed.
                  A final consideration addresses the need to re-evaluate onshore access
            infrastructure. As noted in the state application of comprehensive reef planning,
            there is an growing conflict occurring in the Northeast with shore-based recreational
            anglers parking in areas that were originally intended to accommodate vehicles
            with boat trailers. Facility operators must determine whether infrastructure can be
            improved with larger capacities or whether restrictions must take place. The use of
            restrictions may be difficult as state coastal zone management programs are usually
            disadvantaged by the amount of available access to coastal waters. Restrictions may
            further reduce access.



                                                      29









                     Long and short-term funding support (from saltwater license fees or federal
              sources) to improve parking infrastructure may be necessary. Long-term responses
              may be used to provide a comprehensive evaluation of marine recreational access
              infrastructure.    Although State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans
              inventory these resources, state parks and recreation agencies may not interact
              effectively with access programs that        operate from state divisions of marine
              fisheries or coastal management authorities. Appropriate linkages should be
              established to resolve the need for coastal access and related parking.




                    Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                        ï¿½  An inventory process which evaluates shore-based access
                           infrastructure (fishing piers, jetties, waterfront locations or other
                           shore-based access locations) should be undertaken to identify
                           respective quantity, distribution, condition and related safety
                           considerations. Support infrastructure for parking should also be
                           assessed in this process.

                        ï¿½  Functional plans for the enhancement of fishing piers, jetties,
                           waterfront locations or other shore-based access locations by effectively
                           utilizing artificial reefs.     Plans should also address support
                           infrastructure needs.


                        ï¿½  An assessment of the number of existing sport divers, shore-based and
                           offshore recreational anglers should be undertaken (as noted in Section
                           VII: research requirements) to assess present demand as well as to
                           identify the growth potential and subsequent needs within these
                           various user groups. (Commercial needs are addressed below).

                        ï¿½  An assessment of sport and professional tournament activity should be
                           undertaken to identify potential conflicts with existing recreational and
                           commercial fishing activity. As noted, an effective use of artificial reefs
                           can distribute fishing activity over a wide area, allowing formal or
                           informal zoning or allocation of existing and planned reef resources.
                           The development of sportfishing tournaments may be a means of
                           enhancing local and state tourism economies.





                                                         30











            F. Commercial Utilization of Reefs


                   For purposes of this guide, commercial use of an artificial reef is defined as
            either fishing, or providing fishing opportunities to clients, for direct economic
            gain.  Commercial users are broken down into three respective client groups: (1)
            finfishermen, (2) lobstermen, and (3) charter and party boat operators.
                   Although Sections 202 and 203 of the NEFA stated that efforts should be made
            to facilitate the use of artificial reefs by commercial fishermen, U.S. artificial reef
            planning has traditionally placed a minimal emphasis on commercial utilization of
            artificial reefs. This is a direct contrast to other coastal nations such as Japan
            (Nakamura 1985, Grove et al. 1989, Yamane 1989), in which artificial reefs
            development is directed almost exclusively towards the commercial sector.
                   To comply with NEFA provisions, state planners should identify the
            applications and extent to which artificial reefs can be used by commercial
            fishermen. Once commercial applications have been identified, planners should
            develop or modify their plans accordingly. This will require state artificial --,-eef
            managers to coordinate efforts with respective state and federal agencies. In states
            where recreational fisheries are not as abundant, artificial reefs development should
            be directed to enhance commercial fisheries.
                   1. Finfish
                   Commercial finfish fisheries represent a potential source of conflict with
            artificial reef development activities. Commercial trawlers, draggers, shrimpers,
            etc., attempt to avoid bottom obstructions that may damage or destroy their nets and
            gear. While noting this danger, it is not uncommon for commercial finfish
            fishermen to work as close as possible to wreck sites or other bottom habitat to reap
            the benefits of reef productivity.
                   The issue of access to an artificial reef is not as much of a concern to other
            forms of commercial fishing. For example, commercial handline and longline boats
            can work adjacent to, and over, artificial reef sites. Commercial use of a reef site
            may pose a conflict of use with private recreational anglers and divers, as well as
            with party and charter boat operations. The deployment and management of
            artificial reefs intended for multiple users should be addressed early in the artificial
            reef planning proce@s.
                   Murray (1989) identified that a majority of Gulf and Atlantic coast states target
            their artificial reef planning activities exclusively to recreational interests (including
            party and charter boat operations). In those situations where overfishing occurs,
            artificial reefs may be designated for exclusive use by recreational users. The use of
            special management zones (SMZs) are recommended where restrictions may be
            made by gear type, as well as the number and size of allowable fish to be caught

                                                        31








              (Reeff et al. 1990). The use of SMZs as a management tool is presented later in this
              guide (see section VI(d)).
                     2. Lobster
                     In some regions of the United States, the development of artificial reefs is
              directed towards those geological areas that pose a threat to trawlers and draggers. In
              the Gulf of Mexico, artificial reefs are recommended for those areas that have
              natural snags, hangs and ledges. Placement of artificial reefs according to this
              practice will maintain as much bottomlands as possible for trawling operations.
                     In the Atlantic northeast, the placement of reef material in close proximity to
              bottom features may result in a conflict with the lobster fishery. This is problematic
              because the lobster fishery makes up a significant economic component of northeast
              commercial fisheries. Homarus Americanus, the Maine lobster, seeks those areas
              which provide protection and cover from marine predators. Thus, lobstermen
              often seek out natural ledges and hangs as preferred locations to set their lobster pots
              or traps. Placing artificial reef materials too close to these natural disruptions of the
              bottom may interfere with lobster fisheries by creating a situation where recreational
              anglers will either be (1) competing for surface area to fish from, (2) tangling their
              fishing lines with pot or buoy lines, or (3) tangling their propellers in buoy lines.
                     Concrete rubble (clean of materials such as asbestos) from old buildings,
              highway roadways or the road deck of obsolete bridges may be ideal material for
              establishing benthic lobster habitat. The careful layering of slabs or the deployment
              of large pieces of rubble will, in most situations, establish prime lobster habitat
              (Sheehy 1977). Although some Atlantic states (such as Maine) may not have an
              economic justification for developing an artificial reef program devoted to the needs
              of an underdeveloped recreational fishery, the use of obsolete materials for carefully
              planned lobster habitat will provide additional benefits to the lobster industry.
                     An additional habitat consideration might involve the use of artificial reefs
              for urchin fisheries. Materials targeted within the euphotic zone where light has its
              optimal effects may provide important habitat for Maine urchins, which have
              recently become a significant and highly overfished resource.




                     Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                           An identification of potential applications to use artificial reef
                           development to enhance commercial fishing opportunities in state
                           waters.    This planning effort should identify likely stocks to be
                           enhanced, including preferred and underutilized species.                   A
                           coordinated effort is recommended for planning artificial reef

                                                         32









                         deployment in federal jurisdictions. This may be accomplished by
                         consulting with federal officials at the NMFS and regional fishery
                         management councils. This consultation will also facilitate any
                         planning for economic relocation of commercial fishermen to other
                         sectors of the commercial fishery.

                         An outline of artificial reef design considerations which note particular
                         type(s) of desired habitat to be enhanced.

                   3. Party and charter boat operations
                   The commercial fishing applications described above represent a direct
            harvest of fish for intended profit. Party and charter boats differ because they
            provide a marine transporta,"'on service to recreational anglers so that they may
            harvest fish. According to Ditton et al. (1992) "party boats provide anglers with a
            relatively low-cost means of accessing nearshore and offshore fishing locations."
            Because owning a personal craft capable of travelling safely offshore represents a
            significant financial expenditure, chartering services are an important economic
            option for non-boat owners. In fact, this is often the only opportunity for these
            individuals to fish offshore locations.
                   Although the capture of fish may be incidental to a paying charter on a given
            day, the economic success of a charter boat operation is ultimately dependent upon
            the boat's reputation for successful catches. This raises the question of when the
            threshold for overfishing by a charter boat fleet will occur. This is a serious concern,
            not only to commercial party and charter boat operations, but also to those marine
            recreational anglers who own craft. Unrestricted fishing may result in the decline of
            a fishery, therefore establishing the need for resource allocation or regulation.
            Ditton et al. (1992) noted that "total allowable catch ultimately impacts party boat
            operations in terms of minimum size regulation, bag limits and closures when
            recreational allocations are met." They also concluded that reduced bag limits may
            result in a loss of existing clientele.
                   The literature is representative of comprehensive efforts to understand the
            catch and non-catch motivations of charter boat anglers (Ditton et al. 1978), as well as
            the market for charter and headboat services (Ditton et al. 1991). Ditton et al. (1992)
            stated that: "By understanding the assemblage of fish currently targeted by party boat
            operators in each state, it is possible to predict the likelihood that other species will
            become more heavily targeted in response to increased regulation of the primary
            target species and better assess potential economic impacts." These authors also
            observed that because most party boat operators lack a capability to adequately
            market their service, they are often forced with alternatives to leave their business,
            oppose new management regulations, or target new species when restrictive

                                                       33








              regulations are implemented. This poses an interesting dilemma in the Gulf of
              Mexico as "nearly all offshore species are currently regulated (Dittonet al. 1992)."
                    When the magnitude of charter and party boat operations is understood, the
              need to establish reliable baseline data to monitor the success, stress, decline and
              failure of recreationally targeted fisheries becomes quite clear. Ditton et al. (1992)
              estimated that during a twelve month period in 1986 and 1987, the 97 party boats
              located in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida provided services to
              329,116 anglers who fished offshore. Holland et al. (1992) noted that 142,000 trips
              were conducted offshore in the same study area by charter boats with an estimated
              568,000 angling clients. The development of optional artificial reef destinations will
              provide additional economic opportunities for this marine recreational fishing
              industry and ensure the vitality of targeted stocks.
                    a. economic relocation tool
                    One of the current economic problems facing Commission member states,
              especially in the Northeast, is the decline of the groundfish stocks. Future
              regulatory responses to stock depletion may force many current commercial
              fishermen out of their economic involvement with the fishery. For states that have
              marginal development of their charter and party boat industry, there may be an
              opportunity for some commercial fishermen to relocate within this recreational
              industry. Ditton et al. (1991) noted that there have been enough studies conducted
              so that there is little need to further describe the motivations and satisfaction of
              charter and headboat anglers. The need does exist however to identify the role that
              artificial reef planning and development may have in supporting developing
              charter and party boat industries to accommodate economic relocation.
                    According to Holland et al. (1992), charter (and party) boats make important
              contributions to state and local tourism economies. Although there is extensive
              regulation in some regions of the country and the respective number of operators
              differs over time, Ditton et al. (1992) argued the need for the party boat industry to
              survive from a social equity perspective. They also concluded that without these
              services, many anglers would be precluded from offshore fishing. Ditton et al. (1992)
              placed a responsibility upon the NMFS to see that a role continues to exist for this
              industry. The identification of industry capacity, market demand, promotional
              requirements, economic tourism benefits and growth potential should be
              determined by NMFS or the regional fishery management councils, with
              cooperation from state plan managers, to assess the capacity and capabilities for
              artificial reef development to provide additional habitat opportunity. However,
              managers must ensure that additional opportunities don't translate into a more
              effective means of stressing other fisheries.



                                                       34











                   Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                       ï¿½  An effort to examine the demand for artificial reef deployment by
                          charter and party boat operators. It is this industry that is usually most
                          vocal in its support of reef development programs.

                       *  The determination of the effective range of operators in offshore
                          waters. Managers should note where charter operators observe a
                          decline in the number of private recreational craft. This area of decline
                          may offer an appropriate point to begin seaward deployment of reef
                          materials for the party and charter boat industry.

                       ï¿½  Research to determ.@_ne the capacity for relocating economically
                          impacted commercial fishermen into the party and charter boat
                          industry.


            G. Artificial Reefs as Refuge

                   The use of artificial reefs managed exclusively as habitat or refuge is ill-
            defined in the literature. Although various studies have been done which examine
            recruitment between natural and artificial structures (Alevizon and Gorham 1989,
            Grove et al. 1989), there has been little research that suggests that reefs as refuge are a
            viable deployment option that should be pursued. This guide proposes that
            artificial reefs should be developed, when materials and funding are available,
            merely for enhancing the marine environment. Recognizing that artificial reefs
            deployed in a refuge program would in fact recruit fish from other locations, the
            intended goal would be for the reef to serve as a producer, providing a supply of fish
            that could migrate or be attracted to other natural or artificial settings.
                   All recreational and commercial fishing would be prohibited in this
            application as this type of use would be self-defeating to the intentions involved. If
            all natural and artificial reefs are fished to capacity, then the quality and quantity of
            fishing WILL decline. Artificial reef habitat as refuge would provide a means for
            this resource system to recharge or regenerate itself. Strict enforcement would be
            necessary, but realistically would be difficult as it appears that the lack of consistent
            enforcement is one of the principal reasons why many fish stocks have gone into
            decline (illegal fishing or overfishing of available stocks).



                                                        35











                    Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                       ï¿½  A policy to promote the use of artificial reefs        as refuge where
                          commercial or recreational fishing would be prohibited. Managers
                          may want to investigate dedicating reef sites as SMZs.

                       ï¿½  A means of providing strict enforcement or compliance through
                          reporting of violations by offshore participants. Proper reporting of
                          violations is essential to ensure the success of a refuge program. This
                          may be facilitated by (1) dedicating a portion of any collected fines to
                          those who report the violations, and (2) attaching accountability
                          protection guidelines to enforcement components of the state plans.


             H. Protected Area Management

                    Protected area management refers to the nomination and designation of
             specific marine areas for conservation or protection purposes. Restricted fishing,
             usually rod and reel, or spearfishing, is allowed within the confines of some
             protected areas. A management program usually outlines the approved techniques
             for fishing and the allowed size or creel limits for participants within the protected
             area (United States Department of Commerce 1991).
                    1. Uses in marine sanctuaries
                    Applications for artificial reefs within federal marine sanctuaries have not
             been explored within the traditional sanctuary planning process (United States
             Department of Commerce; 1992, 1991, 1980). There is a potential for use as (1) a
             buffer for damage to the marine ecology of natural habitats, (2) a means of
             distributing fishing and other use pressures, and (3) a refuge to generate fish for
             recruitment to non-sanctuary areas. The federal Office of Ocean and Coastal
             Resource Management (OCRM) should examine ways to incorporate artificial reef
             technology as a management tool within its marine sanctuary program.




                    Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                          Conducting meetings with state artificial reef prograrn managers and
                          federal marine sanctuary authorities (for those sanctuaries situated


                                                       36








                          directly off a state's coastline), to determine if there are any applications
                          or benefits to derived from placing artificial reefs within sanctuary
                          boundaries.



             V. JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

                   This section briefly examines the role of federal, state and local jurisdictions
             in the artificial reef planning process. Regulatory authorities and legal procedures
             are also addressed.


             A. jurisdictions for Offshore Planning Zones

                   U.S. coastal states play a unique role in planning offshore artificial reefs in
             what has traditionally been considered federal jurisdiction (typically beyond three
             n.mi. from shore, nine n.mi. for Texas and the west coast of Florida). Gordon (1994)
             commented that this is an ineffective arrangement as states can 'plan' and deploy
             reef materials in federal waters, but do riot have the authority to manage the fishery
             resources or anglers that frequent the artificial habitat. The NMFS, the U.S. Coast
             Guard and other federally authorized agents (such as deputized state fishery
             personnel) police offshore waters for illegal fishing activities. Unless regulated
             under federal and state authorities, there is a potential to overfish artificial reefs and
             related stocks by marine recreational anglers, charter and party boat operations, sport
             divers and commercial fishermen. A solution can be achieved by effectively
             coordinating state artificial reef planning activities with NMFS and the regional
             fishery management councils and commissions, as well as other federal agencies
             that have a mandated interest in state artificial reef planning.



             B. Federal Agency Jurisdictions

                   The following discussion involves a breakdown of federal agency
             jurisdictions and responsibilities for artificial reef development in state and federal
             waters. Legal mandates are reviewed, as need occurs.
                   1. The National Marine Fisheries Service
                   The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for fisheries
             management seaward of state jurisdiction. Under provisions of the Magnuson
             Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1974, as amended, (16 U.S.C.A. 1801-
             1882), NMFS has the responsibility to develop Fishery Management Plans (FMPs).
             Various species of reef fish, coastal migratory pelagics, spiny lobster and stone crab

                                                         37








              are already managed under FMPs in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic
              regions (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils 1990).
              NMFS, at its discretion, can serve in an advisory capacity for artificial reef activities
              taking place in state waters. NMFS actively reviews proposed state reef sites that are
              located on the federal OCS.
                     2. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
                     The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for permitting
              artificial reef development within state and federal waters. 'Phis permitting
              authority is granted to USACE through the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
              U.S.C.A. 403 et seq.), Section 404 Permitting Program. This authority is also granted
              under Section 205 of the NEFA. The USACE focuses on potential conflicts to
              navigation, as well as the financial ability to assume liability for future damages.
              (NEFA, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils 1990).
                     3. The United States Coast Guard
                     The Coast Guard may be involved in artificial reef development through two
              legislative vehicles. The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1978, as amended, (33
              U.S.C.A. 1221 to 1227) gives the Coast Guard the right to ensure navigational safety
              with allowable clearances and marker requirements over artificial reefs. Under
              provisions of the MFCMA, the Coast Guard is mandated with marine
              environmental and fisheries protection (16 U.S.C.A. 1801-1882). The Coast Guard is
              also one of the enforcement agents for NMFS FMPs and OCRM marine sanctuaries.
                     4. Environmental Protection Agency
                     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency given
              responsibility for regulating air and water pollution in the U.S. Under provisions of
              the Clean Water Act's (33 U.S.C.A. 1251 et seq.) National Pollutant Discharge
              Elimination System (NPDES), the EPA is often consulted with to inspect candidate
              reef materials for any leakage or pollution potential.
                     5. The United States Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Resource
                       Management, Marine and Estuarine Management Division, Marine
                       Sanctuaries Program
                     The National Marine Sanctuaries Program is managed and implemented by
              the Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), pursuant to Title III of the
              Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.A. 1401 to 1445)
              On-site management and enforcement is maintained by Marine Sanctuaries staff or
              through special arrangement with adjacent coastal states. The U.S. Coast Guard is
              also responsible for on-site enforcement within the Marine Sanctuary system.





                                                         38









            C. Regional jurisdictions

                   There are two types of regional entities that have jurisdiction over U.S.
            artificial reef development: Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions and Regional
            Fishery Management Councils. The Councils are the regional binding authority
            which develop fishery management plans for federal waters (EEZ). The Secretary of
            Commerce provides final approval of council developed plans, with NMFS serving
            as implementing agency. Enforcement of federal plans is shared with NMFS and
            the U.S. Coast Guard. The Commissions develop interstate fishery management
            plans for implementation in state waters by the respective states.
                   1. Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions
                   The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFQ is one of three
            interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions which represent the states interest in
            marine fisheries issues on the three U.S. coasts. The ASMFC was established by an
            interstate compact agreed to by the U.S. Congress during the early 1940s. The
            Atlantic , Gulf, and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commissions represent state
            fishery management needs for commercial and recreational fisheries of their
            respective states. The Commissions interact between state and federal authorities to
            coordinate management activities for marine fisheries which migrate among the
            various jurisdictions.
                   2. Regional Fishery Management Councils
                   Regional Fisheries Management Councils established by the Magnuson
            Fishery Conservation and Management Act, prepare fishery management
            regulations for resources within U.S. federal waters (3 to 200 n. mi. offshore), or
            within the federal portion of the EEZ. Council involvement with artificial reefs to
            date has been minimal. However, some regulatory authority as been established
            through designation of Special Management Zones (SMZ) around artificial reefs in
            the South Atlantic. SMZs are used to regulate the fishing activities on particular
            state-permitted reef sites.     The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
            pioneered SMZ language for the Atlantic coast within their Snapper/Grouper
            Fishery Management Plan. Such language established a mechanism through which
            the holder of a permit for an artificial reef in federal waters may petition the Council
            for SMZ status to protect the interest and intent for which the reef was built.
            According to Reeff et al. (1990), the management responsibility for Fishery
            Management Councils to regulate artificial reef use is important as over half (56%)
            of all Atlantic reef sites are situated in federal waters.






                                                       39








              D. State Agency Jurisdictions

                    State jurisdiction over artificial reef development is usually found within
              state departments or divisions of marine fisheries. These agencies are responsible
              for fishery management issues within the state territorial waters, usually within
              three n. mi. of shore. Although advocated within this document in the next
              section, state coastal zone management authorities generally have little interest or
              authority in state fishery management.
                    1. Legislative
                    The initiative to establish state artificial reef plans is ofterl accomplished
              through the enactment of state artificial reef legislation. State legislation is an
              effective means to establish an artificial reef planning and management mandate
              within a state resource agency. Murray (1989) in a study of Gulf and Atlantic coast
              states found four states had artificial reef program elements mandated by state
              legislative efforts, they included North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Texas.
              Many of the elements within the state laws are modelled after NFEA. These
              elements involve permitting, design standards, state plan requirements, liability
              and funding elements (Texas Parks and Wildlife Code 1989)
                    2. Rulemaking
                    Agency rulemaking is another means of describing the government function
              of establishing regulations. The rulemaking powers of government establish
              standards that have similar legal authority as legislative efforts. Therefore, the
              mandate for a state artificial reef program could be undertaken within the regulatory
              framework of a state agency, without any intervention by a state legislature.



              E. County Jurisdictions

                    Among the ASMFC's member states, Florida is the only, one in which
              counties within the states sponsor extensive development of artificial reefs. Eleven
              of thirteen Atlantic coast counties in Florida have county sponsored reef programs
              (McGurrin et al. 1988). Responsibility for program development and operation is
              given to county departments such as parks and recreation, resource management,
              waste management, port authorities or environmental services (McGurrin et al.
              1988). Planning efforts are directed to the tourism attractiveness of the county, by
              placing artificial reef structures off county shorelines to enhance the economic and
              fisheries benefits for the county.
                    Florida allows the development of artificial reefs by individuals, fishing clubs,
              municipalities and county governments. The state reviews projects in state waters,
              but does not involve itself in deployments on the federal OCS. Only a federal 404

                                                        40








            permit is required for offshore deployment. The majority of reef deployment
            activity is administered on a county level (McGurrin et al 1988). This policy is
            generally not recommended in its present form. A central clearinghouse (ie., the
            state artificial reef manager), is required to make comprehensive and systematic
            artificial reef planning a reality. If each county is establishing its own plans (with de
            facto approval by the state), the question must be asked whether a states entire
            assemblage of artificial reefs is optimal in terms of human and natural resource
            benefits. The argument could be made that this type of effort represents an
            incremental and reactive response to the availability of reef materials as opposed to
            a proactive assignment of materials to appropriate sites, based upon the availability
            of pre-approved candidate materials.
                   Historically in Florida, much of the artificial reef development activities in
            the United States have been undertaken by local sport fishing groups and private
            interests. The respective needs of groups such as these, as well as county-wide
            interests, should be funneled through the state artificial reef program manager.
            Issues such as conflict resolution, overcrowding and coordinated program
            development can be dealt with most effectively by a central decision-making
            authority. In the traditional county setting, noted above, one county could be
            ignorant as to the extent of artificial reef planning activities an adjacent county was
            undertaking. Ineffective deployments can result; therefore promoting an ocean
            dumping approach to artificial reef management.


            F. Municipal Jurisdictions

                   As in the case of county reef planning activities, it is not recommended that
            artificial reef planning be carried out at the local level independently of state review.
            Virginia Vail, in McGurrin et al. (1988) stated that:
 'A              "In general, artificial reef development in Florida is not guided by any
                 policies other than those defining permitting criteria. Responsibility
                 for and authority over reef related issues (e.g. placement, construction,
                 fisheries mana -ement, maintenance, enforcement, monitoring, etc.) is
                                 0
                 assigned to separate federal, state and local government bodies which
'A               function independently from the state reef program."
            Many questions arise regarding an incremental approach to reef development.
            There may be no clear single vision of the level of infrastructure placed offshore and
            how this might be managed, should the need occur. What are the implications to
            the public trust doctrine where the state is supposed to hold and manage state lands,
            in this case bottom lands, for the benefit of the people?

                                                       41







              H. Environmental Planning of Onshore Activities and Offshore Impacts

                    Two essential elements of artificial reef management, which have been
              totally disregarded in state plans, are the needs to conduct environmental planning
              for onshore infrastructure or support activities, and offshore environmental
              impacts resulting from artificial reef development activities. Although these
              considerations may be subject to other environmental regulatory authorities (State
              Environmental Policy Acts), state plans should reflect their influence and role in
              potential environmental degradation and note any means to rectify -these situations.
              On and offshore garbage is a serious concern as many states have suffered budget
              reductions in recent years and have been forced to utilize a carry out policy to trash
              pick-up; i.e., you bring it - you take it out. Unfortunately, not everyone subscribes to
              this notion. Public awareness programs need to bring these issues to a higher level
              of public consciousness. Enforcement needs to maintain a consistent level of
              service and presence in this regard.



              VI. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY AND PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS


              A. The Dilemma of Federal Consistency with State Artificial Reef       Plans

                   Federal consistency is a concept that gained national recognition when the
              Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) was enacted (16 U.S.C.A. 1451 to
              1464). This relationship requires federal agencies to consider state interests whe     n
              undertaking activities within a state's coastal management area (16 U.S.C.A. 1456
              (c)(1)(A), (c)(1)(C), (c)(2), (c)(3)(A-B).
                    Federal consistency is somewhat unique to the CZMA. There were no similar
              provisions drafted within the text of the NEFA for establishing consistency reviews
              between state and federal jurisdictions in state plans or programs. Although future
              consistency challenges may occur between federal and state interests in the EEZ,
              where state planning efforts could possibly interfere with federal responsibilities and
              jurisdiction, the major challenge to date has occurred in state waters.
                    The topical issue where federal consistency is most likely to be challenged will
              occur with the mitigation or reduction of anticipated coastal habitat impacts. Simply
              put, federal agencies presently have jurisdiction to undertake mitigation activities
              within a state. These activities may involve creating artificial reef habitat. Examples
              of this already have occurred in Delaware and are pending in Massachusetts. The
              Delaware case involved creating reef habitat in Delaware Bay in response to
              dredging impacts of a coastal wetland (McGurrin et al. 1988). This mitigative effort
              was out-of-kind and off-site from where the initial impacts occurred (McGurrin et

                                                        42








            al. 1988). The pending example in Massachusetts involves the Boston Harbor
            Tunnel Project whereby the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require the
            Massachusetts Department of Transportation to provide mitigation for destroying
            the bottom habitat where tubular sections of the tunnel system are being submerged
            within the substrate of Boston Harbor.
                 The basis of a state objection to federal intervention in the siting of reefs as
            mitigation by federal agencies is unclear under present legal and regulatory
            frameworks. None of the existing Atlantic coast state plans have addressed what
            would be the possible guidelines by which federal agencies can require and
            implement mitigative actions in state coastal waters. The National Plan did not
            provide any substantive administrative or management responses to this issue
            (Department of Commerce 1985) and federal, regional and state fishery management
            plans typically do not address the resolution of conflict in a consistency challenge.
                 Although states vary in the administration of existing artificial reef programs,
            most are managed by state departments of natural resources (DNR) or
            environmental management (DEM). The state DNR or DEM usually maintains a
            division of marine fisheries which manages state marine fishery issues. These
            Guidelines recommend another arrangement.



            B. Federal Consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act

                   The concept of federal consistency is not without precedence
            in fishery management. As noted above, FMPs typically do not address this issue.
            However, according to the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management
            Councils' (1982) fishery management plan for coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of
            Mexico and South Atlantic:
                   11many activities beyond the defined coastal zone may also be
                   influenced by approved coastal programs through operations of
                   CZMA's federal consistency requirements, under which direct federal
                   activities significantly affecting the coastal zone, including the approval
                   of a FMP, must be conducted in a manner consistent to the maximum
                   extent practicable with approved state programs. Activities requiring a
                   federal license or permit, such as plans for OCS exploration,
                   development, and production activities can effectively be vetoed by a
                   coastal state determined not to be consistent with their approved
                   program." (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management
                   Councils 1982, page 7-6).
            The coral reef management plan sought and received consistency reviews from

                                                       43








           states within the geographical area of authority of the two fishery management
           councils (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils 1982,
           page 15-2). No objections to the plan were noted, yet the coral plan is not an
           amendment to the state CZM process, but merely reviewed to identify potential
           consistency conflict. A review does not have the same value or impact as would a
           program amendment.
                  Under provisions of the CZMA, the state CZM Program can establish 'unified
           policies, criteria, and standards' to manage marine uses in the states' territorial
           waters. One of these marine uses can, and should be, artificial reef planning and
           management. Simply put, state plans should be amended into respective state CZM
           programs. This does not preempt state agency responsibilities and jurisdictions. A
           state DNR or DEM, which may have current (or future) responsibility for
           developing and implementing the state plan, will not forfeit its mandate by
           allowing the state CZM Program to 'adopt' the artificial reef program. Typically state
           DEMs or DNRs do not have an effective working relationship with state CZM
           authorities or agencies. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two
           agencies or interests can establish the basis of a working relationship, thereby
           providing the state artificial reef program a means of protecting its interests from
           federal intervention.
                  1. Variations in CZM approaches
                  State coastal zone management programs differ greatly from state-to-state in
           terms  of how they are devised, implemented and managed. Some CZM agencies
           have   rule-making authority, while others do not. The level of autonomy also
           differs to the extent that management issues are either embraced or dismissed by the
           CZM process. A weak state CZM program may be inadequate to coordinate an
           artificial reef program with a state DNR or DEM.


           C. Other Federal Linkages to State Artificial Reef Programs.

                  State artificial reef programs are linked to numerous federal programs. One
           of the most essential federal/state relationships is accommodated through the
           Wallop-Breaux amendments of the Sportfish Restoration Act. Many coastal states
           currently operate their marine recreational fishery programs through federal
           funding made available through the ten percent excise tax that is imposed on the
           recreational fishing industry. Although states vary in the amount of monies
           committed to operating their artificial reef programs and supporting the actual
           deployment of reef materials, most states have developed a dependent relationship
           to this program. Without these funds much of the current artificial reef activity
           would not be possible.

                                                     44









                    1. NEPA requirements
                    Another linkage, although not realized, was the potential relationship of the
             National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.A. 4321-4370b) to the artificial
             reef development process found nationwide. An interesting oversight involved the
             lack of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared to assess the
             programmatic scope of the National Plan. According to McGurrin et al. (1988), there
             has been a significant amount of artificial reef materials deployed in state and
             federal waters along the Atlantic coast. One of the threshold considerations, in
             invoking NEPA is that a project or program is of a major and significant nature, and
             represents a federal action. Although the deployment of these materials was
             piecemeal, a hypothetical action to remove all of this material would not involve a
             hypothetical cost.
                    Under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
             U.S.C.A. 4321-4370b), Section 102 (C) requires the completion of an EIS, which in this
             case would have involved an examination of the cost involved in removing all reef
             materials. For various political reasons, an EIS was never executed. (Gordon 1994).
             NMFS would have been the logical lead agency in undertaking arl EIS but never
             provi ded as much as a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) or a Programmatic
             Environmental Assessment (PEA). As noted by Gordon (1994), "the issue of a
             Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) or EIS addressing removal issues
             is not without precedence, as the U. S. Department of Interior's Minerals
             Management Service (MMS) conducted such an assessment regarding the removal
             (by explosives) of obsolete petroleum platforms in the Central Gulf of Mexico"
             (Iudicello 1989, MMS 1987).
                    Although there has been some concern about the need for an EIS of state
             artificial reef development activities, it is argued that an EIS would not be required
             because of the preparation of a comprehensive state plan. The completion of a state
             plan in the format prescribed in this guide would, in effect, provide as much
             analysis as would be executed in a Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) as undertaken
             by Regional Fishery Management Councils or by NMFS. Typically, FMPs also meet
             EIS standards, where one document meets two statutory requirements.



             D. Special Management Concerns

                    There are some coastal and marine resource management issues which are
             involved directly, or indirectly, with artificial reef planning and development
             activities. Minimal guidance exists, if any, that addresses the application or
             treatment of these management concerns within the context of artificial reef


                                                       45








            planning. The section does not include all possible topics of major concern, but
            addresses those issues that are believed to be of immediate importance to the
            artificial reef planning and development process. These topics include: (1)
            mitigation banking and artificial reef habitat, (2) coral reef management, (3) special
            management zones (SMZs), and (4) habitat restoration (concentrating on micro-
            estuaries). Each of these issues represents a recommended functional plan topic
            within the state plan.
              1. Mitigation banking and artificial reef habitat
               States have varied in how they perceive the value or potential use for mitigation
            banking in their respective state plans. One of the reasons for this posture is the
            recommendation within the National Plan that only on-site compensation be made
            for the same on-site impacts. It is believed that this process has more potential for
            application than what was so easily dismissed by the National Plan (U.S.
            Department of Commerce 1985). A similar attitude prevails in the state plans
            (Noble 1988, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department 1991, New
            York Department of Environmental Conservation 1993). Their discussions typically
            define the concept, note where mitigation has been used, and then provide minimal
            guidance to the positive and negative aspects of designing a mitigation program.
            None of the state pians reviewed provide any guidance in developing a mitigation
            planning component.
                 Mitigation banking is a concept which, under ideal circumstances, promotes
            environmental compensation. Typically, if a terrestrial or aquatic project results in
            a loss of some type or quantity of habitat, a mitigative response will attempt to offset
            this loss by creating a similar (in-kind) or dissimilar (out-of-kind) form of artificial
            habitat. There are several significant questions that arise during this process:
                   (1) Is there any state 'program' guidance or protocol for mitigating natural or
                       human impacts to specific marine habitat?
                   (2) Are mitigative efforts to be in-kind or can they involve an attempt to
                       create or augment another local habitat which is in decline?
                   (3) Are mitigative efforts limited spatially? Must a mitigative effort take
                       place in immediate proximity to the original loss of habitat, or can
                       mitigative efforts take place nearby or anywhere within a particular
                       region, especially when considering water quality issues such as
                       pollution, dissolved oxygen content, turbidity, euphotics, nutrient
                       loadings, etc?
                   (4) Can federal agencies undertake mitigative actions in state waters while
                       neglecting or minimizing input from state agencies?
                   The use of artificial reefs as a mitigation tool should only be considered when
            adjacent coastal or aquatic habitat will be impacted by properly permitted activities.
            There is a serious concern (Heins 1993) that coastal developers may view this as an

                                                       46









              opportunity to impact or destroy coastal habitat, while paying little in terms of
              economic or biological compensation. In an application with hypothetical artificial
              reefs, destruction of coastal habitat could occur with developers promising
              compensation by creating artificial reefs, without justification or concern for optimal
              habitat compensation.
                    According to Steimle and Figley (1990), artificial reefs have beE!n considered as
              a potential substitute habitat for decreasing areas of sea grasses or mangroves. In
              various court cases around the United States, the courts have fined companies for
              impacts to natural resources and have required mitigation activities be undertaken
              at the expense of the violator. For example, seagrasses and mangroves provide
              critical spawning or nursery areas to most estuarine or coastal fisheries. Steimle and
              Figley (1990) observed, appropriately, that little is known about the effectiveness of
              artificial reefs being used as a substitute for non-reef habitat. They continued by
              stating that artificial reefs used as mitigation, without appropriate supporting data,
              could result in a loss of habitat or fishery resources.
                    If in-kind substitution of habitat (wetlands for wetlands) is not available, then
              the use of artificial reefs as a mitigative tool should be considered. However,
              caution must be used. To date there have been few studies which examine the role
              of artificial reefs as a mitigation tool (Hueckel et al. 1989). Research. efforts must be
              initiated to clearly resolve the possible limits of utilizing artificial reefs as a
              mitigative tool (Seaman, Buckley and Polovina 1989). Research topics would
              include: (1) what habitats or biological communities could be substituted by artificial
              reefs, (2) what is the equivalency of replacement units of habitat, and (3) what is the
              long-term benefits of this process?


                    2. Habitat restoration


                    The development of artificial reef may be viewed as a means of restoring
              critical coastal habitat. There has been little if any discussion as to the pragmatics
              involved with such a proposed use.
                           a. micro-estuaries
                    Micro-estuaries are one area where      'future mitigation activities are likely to
              occur. Micro-estuaries are those smaller embayments, coves or indentations that
              extend inland from larger estuaries. Along the Atlantic coast it is common to
              observe tips of estuaries that have essentially been cut off from the larger estuary by
              man-made structures. Berms are the most common example of these structures.
                    Similar to a levee, berms were constructed to support railroad or vehicular
              traffic. It was typical during the 1800s to direct railroad rights of way across coastal
              wetlands to avoid costly land acquisition. As the rail or roadway was constructed


                                                          47









            through marshlands, minimal considerations were made to accommodate boat
            access or tidal flows by designing trestles or bridges. The principal concern was to
            ensure that tidal waters moving in and out of the constricted embayment would not
            cause unnecessary scouring or erosion to undercut piling supports or the
            embankments of the berm. As a result, many of these micro-estuaries have
            experienced accelerated sedimentation and infilling because of a lack of tidal
            flushing.
                  Micro-estuaries are usually polluted from point and nonpoint source
            pollution from the adjacent upland. Loadings of nitrates from organic compounds,
            fecal coliform bacteria from inefficient septic systems and runoff from agriculture
            and fertilizers used in the urban environment all impact these estuarine
            environments. In some situations, toxic compounds are introduced and remain
            within the substrate. Historically, there was no recognition of the importance of
            micro-estuaries as nurseries to the fish that reside in offshore waters.
                  As the groundfish stocks of the offshore banks have declined, there has been
            minimal effort dedicated to reclaiming, restoring, and enhancing coastal juvenile
            habitat from the threats of coastal pollution or development that occurs in these
            wetland environments. Restoration efforts for offshore fisheries have primarily
            been implemented to restrict fishing pressure and competition between recreational
            and commercial fishing activities, near and offshore. This guide sets forth the
            proposition that restoration of these micro-estuaries be supported to the greatest
            extent practicable, to re-establish the viability of these nursery areas as a producer
            and enhancer of the offshore environment.
                  There are two basic approaches to restoring groundfish stocks which include:
            (1) a moratorium on commercial fishing pressure and an elimination of the
            mortality of groundfish stocks as generated by inflated numbers of predators such
            skate and dogfish, or (2) enhancing the productivity of juveniles in estuarine
            environments. The latter is an issue which is presently being debated in Maine
            with the re-licensing of a hydroelectric dam situated in the lower reaches of the
            Kennebec River.
                  Reeff et al. (1990) noted that artificial reefs have not been used effectively to
            enhance nursery or estuarine habitat and that too much emphasis has been placed
            on improving habitat used by fish during adulthood." Murray (1989) stated that
            research should be conducted to determine how reefs produce or attract organisms
            and what effects reefs have on fish stocks. In a 1990 Commission report, Steimle
            and Figley noted that research on estuarine applications of artificial reefs should be
            given the highest priority for future research efforts.
                         b. coastal lagoons and salt ponds
                  Similar to micro-estuaries, coastal lagoons (which are situated landward of


                                                      48








             barrier islands or spits), and coastal salt ponds (which have sporadic or interrupted
             flow with the marine environment) serve as nursery for spawning and juvenile
             fishes. These coastal resources should be evaluated for restoration.






                    Recommended State Plan Policy Guidance Should Include:

                           Identification of uses for small scale reef structures to be deployed in
                           the shallow water areas of estuarine resources. Reef structures may be
                           pre-fabricated structures or made from materials that have a high ratio
                           of interstitial space, to provide maximum cover for juvenile fishes.

                    3. Coral reef management

                    Recently, attention has been devoted to the management of natural coral
             reefs here in the United States. A meeting at the United States Department of State
             in Washington, D.C. in January, 1994 was devoted to (1) research issues, (2)
             international partnerships and (3) domestic management of coral resources.
             Although the greatest threats to coral reefs come from the sedimentation and
             pollution of coastal waters with nutrient and toxic wastes, there is a significant
             threat generated by people using the reef for recreational angling and sport diving.
             The anchoring of personal and commercial craft results in physical damage to the
             natural reef structure.
                    Damage to coral reefs is a problem typical to southeastern states, and has been
             addressed by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's
             Fishery Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement for Coral and
             Coral Reefs (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Councils 1982). Under Amendment
             I Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Councils 1990) to the Coral Management Plan
             the joint Councils identified various research needs relative to the management Of
             coral reefs. Of the several recommendations, some were directed to "Identify
             mitigative methods for preserving and/or establishing reef" and "Determine
             methods for restoring reef habitat and/or improving existing environmental
             conditions that adversely affect reefs (Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Councils
             1990, 16)." This document raised several related issues in its recommendation on
             habitat. The Amendment stated the importance of coral habitat for recreational and
             commercial fishing opportunities and highlighted a policy of the Councils to
             "protect, restore and improve habitat upon which commercial and recreational
             fisheries depend, to increase their extent and to improve their productive capacity."

                                                       49








            The third of three objectives noted the need to "create and develop productive
            habitats where increase fishery productivity will benefit society" (Gulf of Mexico and
            South Atlantic Councils 1990, 18).         Artificial reefs can enhance recruitment
            capabilities to coral reefs systems as well as provide a mitigative tool to reduce
            boating and fishing impacts to coral structures.
                   4. Special management zones (SMZs)
                   Special Management Zones (SMZs) are a spatial tool used to regulate and
            restrict conflicting reef fishing uses. SMZs can also be used to distribute fishing
            pressure within specific fishery resources and to delimit reef management
            boundaries (Gordon and Ditton 1986, Phillips 1988, Reeff et al. 1990). SMZs are
            established at specific artificial reef sites (Gordon and Ditton 1986), and use creel or
            size limits in coordination with gear restrictions. Although SMZs are an effective
            tool in reef fish management, Gordon (1994) cautioned that 'this process, to date, is
            incremental in nature and does not reflect any systematic approach to the fishery
            management of artificial aquatic habitat.' The use of SMZs, when intended, must be
            integrated as an operating element of respective state plans to fully utilize the
            potential of this tool. state plans should identify impacted stocks or those stocks
            having a potential for impact, and work proactively to establish management
            procedures with councils prior to a stocks decline, not after fishing pressure has
            taken a toll.
































                                                      50











                                                REFERENCES


             Alevizon, W. S., and J. C. Gorham. 1989. Effects of artificial reef deployment on
                   nearby resident fishes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):646-661.

             Baxter, M., and G. 0. Ewing. 1981. Models of recreational trip distribution. Regional
                   Studies 15:327-343.

             Bell, M. 1986. Needs of marine artificial reef programs in the United States: a state
                   manager's viewpoint. Pages 552-555 in Proceedings: Ocean 86 Conference;
                   September 23-25; Washington, DC.

             Bockstael, N., A. Graefe, I. Strand and L. Caldwell. 1986. Economic analysis of
                   artificial reefs: a pilot study of selected valuation methodologies. Artificial
                   Reef Development Center, Tech. Rep. Ser., Rep. No. 6. Washington, DC: Sport
                   Fishing Institute. 90 pp.

             Bohnsack, J. A. and D. L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificial reef research: a review with
                   recommendations for future priorities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37(l): 11-39.

             Bowditch, N. 1966. American Practical Navigator. U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office, H.
                   0. Publication No. 9. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

             Bowen, R. E., F. W. Hoole and S. H. Anderson. 1980. Evaluating the impact of coastal
                   zone activities: an illustration of the evaluation research approach. Coastal
                   Zone Mgmt. J. 7(l): 25-46.

             Branch, M. C. 1983. Comprehensive Planning: General Theory and Principles. Pacific
                   Palisades, CA: Palisades Publishers. 203 pp.

             Buchanan, C. C. 1973. Effects of an artificial habitat on the marine sportfishery and
                   economy of Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. Mar. Fish. Rev. 35(9): 15-22.

             Buckley, R. M., D. G. Itano, and T. W. Buckley. 1989. Fish aggregatirig device (FAD)
                   enhancement of offshore fisheries in American Samoa. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):
                   942-949.


             Buckley, R. M. 1982. Marine habitat enhancement and urban recreational fishing in
                   Washington. Mar. Fish. Rev. 44(6-7): 28-37.

             Buckley, R. M., and J. M. Walton. 1981. Fishing piers: Their design, operation, and
                   use. Division of Marine Resources, Tech. Rep. WSG-81-1, Seattle, WA:
                   Washington Sea Grant College Program. 29 pp.


                                                      51








            Burroughs, R. H. and V. Lee. 1988. Narragansett Bay pollution control: an
                    evaluation of program outcome. Coastal Mgmt. 16: 363-377.

            Carlisle, J. G., Jr., C. H. Turner, and E. E. Ebert. 1964. Artificial habitat in the marine
                    environment. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and
                    Game. Fish Bulletin no. 124. Sacramento, California. 93 pp.

            Catane  se, A. J. and J. C. Snyder. 1979. Introduction to Urban Planning. New York:
                    McGraw-Hill Book Company. 354 pp.

            Chapin, F. S., Jr. and E. J. Kaiser. 1979. Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana, IL:
                    University of Illinois Press. 656 pp.

            Chapman, D. G. 1979. Fisheries education as viewed from the inside. Fisheries 4(2):
                    18-21.

            Christian, R. T. 1984. Permitting procedures for artificial reefs. Artificial Reef
                    Development Center, Tech. Rep. Ser. Rep. No. 1. Washington, DO Sport
                    Fishing Institute. 45 pp.

            Christian, R.T. and D.L. Trim 1985. An inventory of a Texas saltwater fishing
                    tournaments: spatial, temporal and participation patterns in 1983. Texas
                    Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch, Management Data
                    Series Number 97, 1986. 29pp.

            Clark, Jr., R. D., and B. Huang. 1985. Conflict between sportfishing, commercial
                    fishing, and rehabilitation of lake trout in Lake Michigan. N. Amer. J. Fish.
                    Mgmt. 5:261-276.

            Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. (16 U.S.C.A. 1451 to 1464).

            Council on Environmental Quality. 1986. Regulations for implementing the
                    procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 40 CFR
                    1500-1508.

            Daniel, D. L. 1976. Empirical and theoretical observations on the potential economic
                    benefits and costs associated with the Mississippi-Alabama Liberty Ship reef
                    programs. Bureau of Business Research. MASGP-77-002. University of
                    Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. 22 pp.

            Dawson, C. P. and B. T. Wilkins. 1980. Social considerations associated with marine
                    recreational fishing under FCMA. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(12): 12-17.




                                                         52








              Ditton, R. B., S. M. Holland, and D. A. Gill. 1992. The U.S. Gulf of Mexico party boat
                     industry: Activity centers, species targeted, and fisheries management
                     opinions. Mar. Fish. Rev. 54(2): 15-20.

              Ditton, R. B., D. A. Gill, and C. L. MacGregor. 1991. Understanding; the market for
                     charter and headboat fishing services. Mar. Fish. Rev. 53(l): 19-26.

              Ditton, R. B. and L. B. Burke. 1985. Artificial reef development -for recreational
                     fishing: a planning guide. Washington DC: Sport Fishing Institute. 68 pp.

              Ditton, R. B., and J. Auyong. 1984. Fishing offshore platforms Central. Gulf of Mexico
                     - An analysis of recreational and commercial fishing use at 164 major offshore
                     petroleum structures. Minerals Manage. Serv., Gulf Mex. Reg. Off. OCS
                     Monogr. MMS 84-0006,158 p.

              Ditton, R. B., and A. J. Fedler. 1983. A statewide survey of boat owners in Texas and
                     their saltwater fishing activity. Texas A&M University. Sea Grant College
                     Program. Sea Grant Rep. no. TAMU-SG-82-205, 65 p.

              Ditton, R. B. 1981. Social and economic considerations for artificial reef deployment
                     and management. Pages 23-32 in D. Y. Aska. ed. Artificial Reefs: Conference
                     Proceedings. Florida Sea Grant Rep. No. 41, University of Florida, Gainesville.

              Ditton, R. B., A. R. Graefe, and A. J. Fedler. 1980. Predicting marine recreational
                     patterns from boat characteristics and equipment. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
                     109:644-648.

              Ditton, R. B., T. J. Mertens, and M. P. Schwartz. 1978. Characteristics, participation,
                     and motivations of Texas charter boat fishermen. Mar. Fish. Rev. 40(8): 8-13.
              Ditton, R. B., and A. R. Graefe. 1978. Recreational fishing use of artificial reefs on the
                     Texas coast. Texas Coastal Marine Council., Austin, Contr. Rep. (77-79) 0805,
                     155 p.

              Dugas, R., V. Guillory, and M. Fischer. 1979. Oil rigs and offshore sport fishing in
                     Louisiana. Fisheries 4(6):2-10.

              Dutton, B. 1942. Navigation and Nautical Astronomy. United States Naval Institute.
                     Annapolis, Maryland.

              Englander, E., J. Feldmann and M. Hershman. Coastal zone problems: a basis for
                     evaluation. Coastal Zone Mgmt. J. 3(3): 217-236.

              Erickson, Paul A. 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and
                     Applications. New York: Academic Press. 395 pp.


                                                         53







           Evander, J. L. 1985. Application and evaluation of an artificial reef siting model in
                  the Galveston, Texas region. Artificial Reef Development Center, Tech. Rep.
                  Ser., Rep. No. 7. Washington, DC: Sport Fishing Institute. 43 pp.

           Ewing, G. 0. 1980. Progress and problems in the development of recreation trip
                  generation and trip distribution models. Leisure Sciences 3:1-24.

           Falk, J. M., A. R. Graefe, C. Alkire, and D. Swartz. 1983. 1982 Head/ charter-boat
                  fishing in Delaware: An analysis of customers and their economic impact.
                  University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark. Sea Grant Rep.
                  Del-SG-03-83, 54 p.

           Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.A. 1251 to 1387).

           Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 1986. A framework for understanding the
                  consumptive orientation of recreational fishermen. Environmental
                  Management. 10(2):221-227.

           Fedler, A. J. 1984. Elements of motivation and satisfaction in the marine recreational
                  fishing experience. Mar. Rec. Fish. 9:75-83.

           Fernald, E. A., K. Walby, S. J. Miller and J. P. Jones, 111. 1979. Marine-related
                  recreation businesses and public facilities in Bay County, Florida. Tech. Paper
                  No. 15. Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant College Program. 82 pp.

           Foster, J. W. S., C. Fowler, and the ASMFC Artificial Reef Committee. 1992. Reef
                  material criteria handbook. Special Rep. Washington DC: Atlantic States
                  Marine Fisheries Commission. 72 pp.

           Fotheringham, A. S. 1981. Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters. Annals
                  of the Association of American Geographers 71:425-436.

           Fotheringham, A. S. 1983. A new set of spatial-interaction models: The theory of
                  competing destinations. Environment and Planning A 15:15-36.

           Gallaway, B., and G. S. Lewbel. 1982. The ecology of petroleum platforms in the
                  northwestern Gulf of Mexico: A community profile. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur.
                  Land Manage., Gulf Mex. OCS Reg. Off. Open File Rep. 82-03, 91 p.

           Gordon, W. R. 1994. A role for comprehensive planning, geograF..Mcal information
                  system (GIS) technologies, and program evaluation in aquatic habitat
                  development. Bull. Mar. Sci. (forthcoming).

           Gordon, W. R. 1993a. Travel characteristics of marine anglers using oil and gas
                  platforms in the central Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Fish. Rev. 55(l):25-31.


                                                     54









             Gordon, W. R. 1993b. Park planning in the marine recreational environment: The
                   need for comprehensiveness and consistency. 30(2): 8-12.

             Gordon, W. R., Jr. 1987. Predicting recreational fishing use of offshore petroleum
                   platforms in the central Gulf of Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
                   Urban and Regional Planning, Texas A&M University. 177 pp.

             Gordon, W. R., Jr. and R. B. Ditton. 1986. A user-resource planning framework for
                   offshore recreational artificial reefs. Coastal Zone Mgmt. J. 13(3/4): 369-395.

             Graefe, A. R. 1981. Social and economic data needs for reef program assessment.
                   Pages 152-166 in D. Y. Aska. ed. Artificial Reefs: Conference Proceedings.
                   Florida Sea Grant Rep. No. 41, University of Florida, Gainesville.

             Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 1992. Reflections. No. 27/ June. p. 11.

             Green, L. M., H. R. Osburn, G. C. Matlock, and R. B. Ditton. 1991. Development of a
                   social and economic questionnaire for on-site interviews of marine
                   recreational anglers in Texas. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 12:
                   406-412.

             Griffith, D. A., and K. G. Jones. 1980. Explorations into the relationship between
                   spatial structure and spatial interaction. Environment and Planning A 12:187-
                   201.


             Grove, R. S., C. J. Sonu and M. Nakamura. 1989. Recent Japanese trends in fishing
                   reef design and planning. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 984-996.

             Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. 1990.
                   Amendment 1 to the fishery management plan for coral and coral reefs.
                   South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, S.C. 18 p.

             Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. 1982. Final
                   environmental impact statement for the fishery management plan for coral
                   and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, South Atlantic
                   Fishery Management Council. Charleston, S.C. no pagin.

             Gunn, C. A. 1983. Tourism Planning. New York: Crane Russak. 371 pp.

             Hahn, J. 1991. Angler specialization: Measurement of a key sociological concept and
                   implications for fisheries management decisions. American Fisheries Society
                   Symposium. 12: 380-389.




                                                     55









            Hanni, E. and H. H. Mathews. 1977. Benefit-cost study of Pinellas County artificial
                   reefs. Tech. Paper No. 1. Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant College Program.
                   44 pp.

            Heins, S. W. 1993. Personal Communication. Marine Resources Specialist and New
                   York State Artificial Reef Coordinator, New York Department of
                   Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Finfish and Crustaceans, Division of
                   Marine Resources, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY. December 6.

            Holland, S. M., R. B. Ditton, and D. A. Gill. 1992. The U.S. Gulf of Mexico charter
                   boat industry: Activity centers, species targeted, and fisheries management
                   opinions. Mar. Fish. Rev. 54(2): 21-26.

            Holland, S.M., and R. B. Ditton. 1992. Fishing Trip Satisfaction: A typolgy of anglers.
                   N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 12:28-33.

            Holland, S. M. 1991. Demographic indicators of the relative need for artificial reefs
                   in Florida. Coastal Mgmt. 19(2): 219-238.

            Holland, S. M., and J. W. Milon. 1989. The structure and economics of the charter
                   and party boat fishery fleet of the Gulf Coast of Florida. U.S. Department of
                   Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Final Rep. Contract
                   NA-87WC-H-06141, 278 p.

            Hoole, F. W. and R. L. Friedheim. 1978. Evaluation research and marine and coastal
                   policies. Mar. Tech. Soc. J. 12(4): 13-17.

            Houston Helicopters, Inc. 1985. Louisiana gulf coast flight map. Pearland, Tex.

            Hueckel, G. J., R. M. Buckley, and B. L. Benson. 1989. Mitigating rocky habitat loss
                   using artificial reefs. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 913-922.

            ludicello, S. 1989. Relationship of rigs-to-reefs to U.S.             environmental
                   conservation law. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 789-798.

            Johnson, L. 1974. Artificial reefs for Texas. Texas A&M Industrial Economics
                   Division, TAMU-SG-73-214. College Station, TX Texas A&M University Sea
                   Grant College Program. 38 pp.

            Johnston, R. J. 1975. Map pattern and friction c@_ distance parameters: A comment.
                   Regional Studies (9):281-283.

            Jones, J. I. (ed). 1986. A plan for siting artificial reefs in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
                   Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium MASGP-86-021. 840 pp.


                                                        56








              Kenchington, R. A. 1990. Managing Marine Environments. New York: Taylor and
                    Francis. 248 pp.

              Klima, E. F., and D. A. Wickham. 1971. Attraction of coastal pelagic fishes with
                    artificial structures. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100:86-99.

              Lamb, J. C. 1985. Water Quality and Its Control. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 384
                    PP.

              Leedy, D. L., T. M. Franklin and R. M. Maestro. 1981. Planning for w-ban fishing and
                    waterfront recreation. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/35.
                    Washington, DC: U. S. Department of the Interior. 108 pp.

              Liao, D. S. and D. M. Cupka. 1979. Economic impacts and fishing success of offshore
                    sport fishing over artificial reefs and natural habitats in South Carolina.
                    South Carolina Marine Resources Center Tech. Rep. 38, South Carolina
                    Wildlife and Marine Fisheries Department, 27 p.

              Loomis, D. K., and R. B. Ditton. 1987. Analysis of motive and participation
                    differences between saltwater sport and tournament fishermen. N. Am. J.
                    Fish. Manage. 7:482-487.

              Lukens, R. R., J. D. Cirino, J. A. Ballard, and G. Geddes. 1989. Two methods of
                    monitoring and assessment of artificial reef materials. Special Rep. No. 2-WB.
                    Ocean Springs, MS: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 58 pp.

              Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1974, as amended, 16
                    U.S.C.A. 1801-1882.

              Market Facts, Inc. 1983. National marine fisheries service site description-pressure
                    report. Rep. prep. by Market Facts, Inc., Chicago, for U.S. Dep. Commer.,
                    NOAA, Natl- Mar. Fish. Serv., unpagin.

              Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.A.. 1431 et seq.).

              Mathews, H. H. 1981. Artificial reef site: Selection and            evaluation. Pages
                    50-54. in D. Y. Aska. ed. Artificial Reefs: Conference Proceedings. Florida Sea
                    Grant Rep. No. 41, University of Florida, Gainesville.

              Mathews, H. H. 1979. Artificial reef site selection and evaluation. MAFS-20.
                    Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program. 3 pp.

              Matlock, G. C., H. R. Osburn, R. K. Riechers, and R. B. Ditton. 1991. Comparison of
                    response scales for measuring angler satisfaction. American Fisheries Society
                    Symposium. 12: 413-422.

                                                        57









            McGurrin, J. M., R. B. Stone and R. J. Sousa. 1989a. Profiling United States artificial
                   reef development. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 1004-1013.

            McGurrin, J. M. and the ASMFC Artificial Reef Committee. 1989b. An assessment of
                   Atlantic artificial reef development. Fisheries 14(4): 19-25.

            McGurrin, J. M. and the ASMFC Artificial Reef Committee. 1988. A profile of
                   Atlantic artificial reef development. Special Rep. No. 14. Washington DC:
                   Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 153 pp.

            McGurrin, J. M. and M. J. Reeff. 1986. Resource planning as applied to rigs to reef
                   siting. Proceedings: Sixth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer
                   Meeting, OCS Study MMS 86-0073. U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
                   Management Service, New Orleans, Louisiana. pp. 109-112.

            McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with Nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/ Natural
                   History Press. 197 pp.

            Miller, Jr., G. T. 1992. Living in the Environment, 7th edition. Wadsworth
                   Publishing Company, Belmont, California. 705 p.

            Miller, M. L. and R. B. Ditton. 1986. Travel, tourism and marine affairs. Coastal Zone
                   Mgmt J. 14(1/2): 1-20.

            Milon, J. W. 1991. Socioeconomic evaluation of artificial aquatic habitat. Pages 237-
                   270 in W. Seaman, Jr. and L. M. Sprague. eds. Artificial Habitats for Marine
                   and Freshwater Fisheries. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

            Milon, J. W. 1989a. Economic-evaluation of artificial habitat for fisheries: Progress
                   and challenges. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 831-843.

            Milon. J. W. 1989b. Artificial marine habitat characteristics and participation
                   behavior by sport anglers and divers. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 853-862.

            Milon, J. W. 1988. The economic benefits of artificial reefs: an analysis of Dade
                   County, Florida reef system. SGR-90. Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant
                   College Program. 85 p.

            Minerals Management Service. 1987. Programmatic Environmental Assessment,
                   Structure Removal Activities, Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning
                   Areas. GOM OCS Regional Office. OCS EIS/EA MMS 87-000. April 1987. 45 -
                   PP.

            Moeller, G. H., and J. H. Engelken. 1972. What fishermen look for in an angling
                   experience. J. of Wildlife Mgmt. 36:1253-1257.

                                                      58









             Murdock, S. H., K. Backman, R. B. Ditton, M. N. Hoque, and D. Ellis. 1992.
                    Implications of future demographic change for participation in fishing in
                    Texas. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 12:548-558.

             Murray, J. D. 1989. A policy and management assessment of southeast and mid-
                    Atlantic artificial reef programs. UNC-SG-WP-89-3. Raleigh, NC: University
                    of N. C. Sea Grant College Program. 87 pp.

             Myatt, D. 0. and R. B. Ditton. 1986. Exclusion mapping for artificial reef site
                    selection to maximize recreational fishing benefits in the Gulf of Mexico.
                    Artificial Reef Development Center. Washington, DC: Sport Fishing Institute.
                    157 pp.

             Myatt, D. 0. 1981. Planning considerations for reef construction. Pages 41-49 in D. Y.
                    Aska. ed. Artificial Reefs: Conference Proceedings. Florida Sea Grant Rep. No.
                    41, University of Florida, Gainesville.

             Nakamura, M. 1985. Evolution of artificial reef concepts in Japan. Bull. Mar. Sci.
                    37(l):271-278.

             National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (42 U.S.C.A. 4321 to 43701)).

             National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984. (33 U.S.C.A. 2103, et seq.).

             National Research Council. 1985. Disposal of offshore platforms. Commission on
                    Engineering and Technical Systems, Committee on Disposition of Offshore
                    Platforms. Washington, D.C.

             Niagara County, New York. 1984. Salmonid fisheries development plan. Niagra
                    County Department of Economic Development and Planning, Lockport, New
                    York.

             Noble, E. B. 1988. North Carolina artificial reef master plan. Division of Marine
                    Fisheries Special Scientific Rep. No 47. Morehead City, NC: N. C. Department
                    of Natural Resources and Community Development. 57 pp.

             Noden, D., and T. Brown. 1975. The New York commercial marina and boatyard
                    industry, 1972. N.Y. Sea Grant Inst., Rep. N-YSSGP-RS-75-020, 92 p.
             Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended in 1978, (43U.S.C.A. 1331 et
                    seq.).




                                                      59









            Parker, R. 0., Jr., R. B. Stone, C. C. Buchanan and F. W. Steimle, Jr. 1974. How to
                   build marine artificial reefs. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Facts
                   10. Washington DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 47
                   PP.

            Phillips, S. H. 1988. Artificial reefs and fishery conflicts: Problems and opportunities
                   for the sport fishing industry. Artificial Reef Development Center.
                   Washington, DC: Sport Fishing Institute. 64 pp.

            PNR and Associates. 1985. Marketing strategies for the Northeast party boat, charter
                   boat and rental fishing boat industry. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,
                   National Marine Fisheries Service, Final Rep. NMFS Contract NA-84-FA-D-
                   00002, 65 p.

            Poffenberger, J. R. 1985. Operational and financial characteristics of reef-fish vessels
                   in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico areas. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 5:379-
                   388.

            Pope, D. L. and T. F. Moslow. 1989. Geological and geotechnical aspects of artificial
                   reef site selection, offshore Louisiana. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 1068-9.

            Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1978, as amended, (33 U.S.C.A. 1221 to 1227).

            Ranasinghe, J. A. 1981. Biological aspects of artificial reefs. Pages 14-16 in D. Y. Aska.
                   ed. Artificial Reefs: Conference Proceedings. Florida Sea Grant Rep. No. 41,
                   University of Florida, Gainesville.

            Reeff, M. J., J. D. Murray, J. M. McGurrin and the ASMFC Artificial Reef Committee.
                   1990. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission recommendations for
                   Atlantic state artificial reef management. Recreational Fisheries Rep. No. 6.
                   Washington DC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 11 pp.

            Reeff, M. J. 1986. Reef profiles: technology evaluation for resource development.
                   Proc. of Oceans 86. 2: 538-541.


            Reggio, Jr., V. C., and R. Kasprzak. 1991. Rigs to reefs: Fuel for fisheries enhancement
                   through cooperation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 11:9-17.
            Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ( 33 U.S.C.A. 403 et seq.)

            Rossi, P. H. and H. E. Freeman. 1982. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Beverly
                   Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 350 pp.

            Roberts, K. J., and M. E. Thompson. 1983. Petroleum production structures:
                   Economic resources for Louisiana sport divers. La. Sea Grant Coll. Program,
                   Sea Grant Publ. LSU-TL-83-002,39 p.

                                                        60









             Roberts, K. J., M. E. Thompson, and P. W. Pawlyk. 1985. ContingE!nt valuati     on of
                    recreational diving at petroleum rigs, Gulf of Mexico. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
                    114:214-219.


             Samples, K. C. 1989. Assessing recreational and commercial conflicts over artificial
                    fishery habitat use: Theory and practice. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 844-852.

             Samples, K. C., and J. R. Hollyer. 1989. Economic considerations inconfiguring fish
                    aggregation device networks. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 863-872.

             Schwartz, J. D. 1980. A public program analysis of operations and impacts of the
                    Texas Liberty Ship reef program. Master's thesis. Department of Recreation
                    and Parks, Texas A&M Univ. College Station. 157 pp.

             Seaman, W. R., Jr., R. M. Buckley and J. J. Polovina. 1989. AdvanCE!S in knowledge
                    and priorities for research, technology and management related to artificial
                    aquatic habitats. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2): 527-532.

             Seaman, W., Jr., W. J. Lindberg, C. R. Gilbert, and T. K. Frazer. 1989. Fish habitat
                    provided by obsolete petroleum platforms off southern Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci.
                    44:1014-1022.


             Simpson, R. A. 1977. The biology of two offshore oil platforms. Institute of Marine
                    Resources, University of California, IMR 76-13.

             Sonnier, F., J. Teerling, and H. D. Hoese. 1976. Observations on the offshore reef and
                    platform fish fauna of Louisiana. Copeia 1:105-111

             Spencer, P. D. 1993. Factors influencing satisfaction of anglers on Lake Miltona,
                    Minnesota. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 13:201-209.

             Spencer, P. D., and G. R. Spangler. 1992. Effect that providing fishing information
                    has on angler expectations and satisfaction. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 12:379-
                    385.

             Stanley, D. R., and C. A. Wilson. 1989. Utilization of offshore platforms by
                    recreational fishermen and scuba divers off the Louisiana coast. Bull. Mar.
                    Sci. 44:767-775.

             Steimle, F., W. Figley and the ASMFC Reef Committee. 1990. A review of artificial
                    reef research needs. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Artificial
                    Reef Advisory Committee, Recreational Fisheries Rep. No. 7. 27 pp.



                                                       61








            Stephan, C. D., B. G. Dansby, H. R. Osburn, G. C. Matlock, R. K. Riechers and R.
                   Rayburn. 1990. Texas artificial reef fishery management plan. Fishery
                   Management Plan Series, No. 3, Source Document. Texas Parks and Wildlife
                   Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch. Austin. 95 pp.

            Stoll, J. R., R. B. Ditton, and D. A. Gill. 1989. Recreational angler participation in the
                   Gulf of Mexico king mackeral fishery: Understanding the value of the
                   resource and socioeconomic impacts of management options. Rep. to
                   National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg,
                   FL, Contrib. no. NA86-WE-H-UT132 (RF-86-1015) 213 p.

            Stone, R. B. 1985. History of artificial reef use in the U. S. Pages 3-9 in Frank M.
                   D'Itri. ed. Artificial reefs: Marine and Freshwater applications. Lewis
                   Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.

            Stouffer, S. A. 1940. Intervening opportunities: a theory relating mobility and
                   distance. American Sociological Review 5:845-867.

            Stouffer, S. A. 1960. Intervening opportunities and competing migrants. journal of
                   Regional Science 2:1-26.

            Stowe, K. S. 1983. Ocean Science, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 673
                   P.

            Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C.A. 1301 et seq.

            Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. 1989. Artificial Reefs. Subtitle H., Chapter 89,
                   Sections 89.001 - 89.061.

            Turner, C. H., E. E. Ebert, and R. R. Given. 1969. Man-made reef ecology. The
                   Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin
                   no. 146. Sacremento, California. 221 pp.

            United States Department of Commerce, 1992. Final environmental impact
                   statement and management plan for the proposed Monterey Bay National
                   Marine Sanctuary. Washington DC: Sanctuaries andReserves Division, Office
                   of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service,
                   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. n.p.

            United States Department of Comfcorce, 1991. Final environmental impact
                   statement and management plan for the proposed Flower Garden Banks
                   National Marine Sanctuary. Washington DC: Sanctuaries and Reserves
                   Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean
                   Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. n.p.


                                                        62








             United States Department of Commerce. 1985. National artificial reef plan. NOAA
                    Tech. Mem. NMFS OF-6, compiled by R. B. Stone, National Marine Fisheries
                    Service. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                    Administration. 39 pp.

             United States Department of Commerce. 1980. Final environmental impact
                    statement on the proposed Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary. Washington
                    DC: Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                    Administration. n.p.

             United States Department of the Interior. 1987. Programmatic environmental
                    assessment, structure removal activities, Central and Western Gulf of Mexico
                    planning areas. GOM OCS Regional Office. OCS EIS/EA MMS 87-0002.45 pp.

             United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance specifying
                    management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters.
                    Washington DC: Office of Water (WH-553). EPA 840-B-92-002. n.p.

             United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. U.S. EPA nonpoint source
                    information exchange computer bulletin board system (BBS): User's manual.
                    Washington DC: Office of Water (WH-553). EPA 503/8-92/002. 64 pp.

             Voiland, M. P. and M. W. Duttweiler. 1984. Where's the humanity? A challenge and
                    opportunity for the fisheries community. Fisheries 9(4): 10-12.

             Wilson, C. A., V. R. Van Sickle and D. L. Pope. 1987. Louisiana artificial reef plan.
                    Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Tech. Bull. No. 41. Baton
                    Rouge. 130 pp.

             Wilson, K. C., R. D. Lewis and H. A. Togstad. 1990. Artificial reef plan for sport fish
                    enhancement. Admin. Rep. No. 90-15. Long Beach, CA: Marine Resources
                    Division, California Department of Fish and Game. 76 pp.

             Witzig, J. F. 1986. Rig fishing in the Gulf of Mexico - 1984 marine recreational
                    fishing survey results. In Proceedings, Sixth Annual Gulf of Mexico
                    Information Transfer Meeting. New Orleans, La. October 22-24, 1985, p. 103-
                    105. Min. Manage. Serv., Gulf Mex. OCS Reg. Off., Metairie, La. OCS Study
                    MMS 86-0073.

             Yamane, T. 1989. Status and future plans of artificial reef projects in Japan. Bull.
                    Mar. Sci. 44(2): 1038-1040.

             Zapata, A., and R. B. Ditton. 1979. The status of boating information systems. Coastal
                    Zone Mgmt. J. 6:99-107.


                                                       63




I
I
I
I
I
I
I                                  APPENDIX I -
I                   NATIONAL FISHING ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1984
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1



'A                                     64











             1.     NATIONAL FISHING ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1984: TITLE 11 -
                    ARTIFICIAL REEFS.


             SECTION 201. SHORT TITLE.
                    This title may be cited as the "National Fishing Enhancement
                    Act of 1984."


             SECTION 202. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
             (a) FINDINGS - The Congress finds that -
                    (1) although fishery products provide an important source of protein and
             industrial products for United States consumption, Unites States fishery production
             annually falls far short of satisfying United States demand;
                    (2) overfishing and the degradation of vital fishery resource habitats have
             caused a reduction in the abundance and diversity of United States fishery resources;
                    (3) escalated energy costs have had a negative effect on the economics of
             United States commercial and recreational fisheries;
                    (4) commercial and recreational fisheries are a prominent factor in United
             States coastal economies and the direct and indirect returns to the United States
             economy from commercial and recreational fishing expenditures are threefold; and
                    (5) properly designed, constructed, and located artificial reefs in waters
             covered under this title can enhance the habitat and diversity of fishery resources;
             enhance United States recreational and commercial fishing opportunities; increase
             the production of fishery products in the United States; increase the energy
             efficiency of recreational and commercial fisheries; and contribute to the United
             States and coastal economies.


             (b) PURPOSE -- The purpose of this title is to promote and facilitate responsible and
             effective efforts to establish artificial reefs in waters covered under this title.


             SECTION 203. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS.
                    Based on the best scientific information available, artificial reefs in waters
             covered under this title shall be sited and constructed, and subsequently monitored
             and managed, in a manner which will --                                                        I
                    (1) enhance fishery resources to the maximum extent practicable;
                    (2) facilitate access and utilization by United States recreational and
             commercial fishermen;
                    (3) minimize conflicts among competing uses of waters covered under this
             title and the resources in such waters;


                                                      65






            and    (4) minimize environmental risks and risks to personal health and property;
                   (5) be consistent with generally accepted principles of international law and
            shall not create any unreasonable obstruction to navigation.
            SECTION 204. NATIONAL ARTIFICIAL REEF PLAN.
                   Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary
            of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
            Defense, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary
            of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, the Regional Fishery
            Management Councils, interested States, Interstate Fishery Commissions, and
            representatives of the private sector, shall develop and publish a long-term plan
            which will meet the purpose of this title and be consistent with the standards
            established under section 203.


            The plan must include --
                   (1) geographic, hydrographic, geologic, biological, ecological, social, economic,
            and other criteria for siting artificial reefs;
                   (2) design, --naterial, and other criteria for constructing artificial reefs;
                   (3) mechanisms and methodologies for monitoring the compliance of
            artificial reefs with the requirements of permits issued under section 205;
                   (4) mechanisms and methodologies for managing the use of artificial reefs;
                   (5) a synopsis of existing information on artificial reefs and needs for further
            research on artificial reef technology and management strategies; and
                   (6) an evaluation of alternatives for facilitating the transfer of artificial reef
            construction materials to persons holding permits issued pursuant to section 205,
            including, but not limited to, credits for environmental mitigation and modified tax
            obligations.


            SECTION 205. PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT OF
                            ARTIFICIAL REEFS.
                   (a) SECRETARIAL ACTION ON PERMITS -- In issuing a permit for artificial
            reefs under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 404 of the
            Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf
            Lands Act, the Secretary of the Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
            "Secretary") shall --
            (1) consult with and consider the views of appropriate Federal
            agencies, States, local governments, and other interested parties;
                   (2) ensure that the provisions for siting, constructing, monitoring, and
            managing the artificial reef are consistent with the criteria and standards established


                                                       66








             under this title;
                    (3) ensure that the title to the artificial reef constrUCti,Dn material is
             unambiguous, and that responsibility for maintenance and the financial ability to
             assume liability for future damages are clearly established; and
                    (4) consider the plan developed under section 204 and notify the Secretary of
             Commerce of any need to deviate from the plan.

                    (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMITS -- (1) Each permit issued by the
             Secretary subject to this section shall specify the design and location for construction
             of the artificial reef and the types and quantities of materials that May be used in
             constructing such artificial reef - In addition, each such permit shall specify such
             terms and conditions for construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and
             managing the use of the artificial reef as are necessary for compliance with all
             applicable provisions of law and as are necessary to ensure the protection of the
             environment and human safety and property.
             (2) Before issuing a permit under section 402 of the
             Federal Water Pollution Control Act for any activity relating to the siting, design,
             construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, or managing of an artificial reef,
             the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall consult with the
             Secretary to ensure that such permit is consistent with any permit issued by the
             Secretary subject to this section.

                    (c) LIABILIT"Y OF PERMITTEE -- (1) A person to whom a permit is issued in
             accordance with subsection (a) and any insurer of that person shall not be liable for
             damages caused by activities required to be undertaken under any terms and
             conditions of the permit, if the permittee is in compliance with such terms and
             conditions.
             (2) A person to whom a permit is issued in accordance
             with subsection (a) and any insurer of that person shall be liable, to the extent
             determined under applicable law, for damages to which paragra- h (1) does not
                                                                                    P
             apply.
             (3) The Secretary may not issue a permit subject to this
             section to a person unless that person demonstrates to the Secretary the financial
             ability to assume liability for all damages that may arise with respect to an artificial
             reef and for which such permittee may be liable.
             (4) Any person who has transferred title to artificial reef
             construction materials to a person to whom a permit is issued in accordance with
             subsection (a) shall not be liable for damages arising from the use of such materials
             in an artificial reef, if such materials meet applicable requirements of the plan
             published under Section 204 and are not otherwise defective at the time title is

                                                        67











            transferred.


                   (d) LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES -- Nothing in this title creates any
            liability on the part of the United States.

                   (e) CIVIL PENALTY -- Any person who, after notice and an opportunity for a
            hearing, is found to have violated any provision of a permit issued in accordance
            with subsection (a) shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty, not to
            exceed $10,000 for each violation. The amount of the civil penalty shall be assessed
            by the Secretary by written notice. In determining the amount of such penalty, the
            Secretary shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
            violation. The Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit with or without
            conditions, any civil penalty which is subject to imposition or which has been
            imposed under this section. If any person fails to pay (an) assessment of a civil
            penalty after it has become final, the Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney
            General for collection.


            SECTION 206. DEFINITIONS.


                   For purposes of this title --
                   (1) The term "artificial reef" means a structure which is constructed or placed
            in waters covered under this title for the purpose of enhancing fishery resources and
            commercial and recreational fishing opportunities.
                   (2) The term "State" means a State of the United States, the District of
            Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam,
            Johnston Island, Midway Island, and Wake Island.
                   (3) The term "waters covered under this title" means the navigable waters of
            the United States and the waters superjacent to the Outer Continental Shelf as
            defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. section 1331)
            to the extent such waters exist in or are adjacent to any State.


            SECTION 207. USE OF CERTAIN VESSELS AS ARTIFICIAL REEFS.


                   The Act entitled "An Act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 1973
            for certain maritime programs of the Department of Commerce and for other
            purposes," approved August 22, 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1220-1220c), is amended --
                   (1) by striking out "Liberty" each place it appears in sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 and
            inserting in lieu thereof "obsolete";
                   (2) by striking out "Commerce" in section 3 and inserting in

                                                       68








                    lieu thereof "Transportation";
                    (3) by striking out "shall" in the matter preceding paragraph
                    (1) in section 4 and inserting in lieu thereof "may"; and
                    (4) by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
             "SECTION 7. For purposes of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, the term "obsolete ship" means
             any vessel owned by the Department of Transportation that has beeia determined to
             be of insufficient value for commercial or national defense purposes to warrant its
             maintenance and preservation in the national defense reserve fleet and has been
             designated as an artificial reef candidate."


             SECTION 208. SAVINGS CLAUSES.


                    (a) TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY JURISDICTION - Nothing in
             this title shall be construed as replacing or superseding section 26a of the Tennessee
             Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. 831y-1).
                    (b) STATE JURISDICTION -- Nothing in this title shall be
             construed as extending or diminishing the jurisdiction or authority of any State
             over the siting, construction, monitoring, or managing of artificial reefs within its
             boundaries.


             2.     U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS -- SPECIAL POLICY ON ARTIFICIAL
             REEFS


             SECTION 322.5 -- SPECIAL POLICIES.


                    The Secretary of the Army has delegated to the Chief of Engineers the
             authority to issue or deny section 10 permits. The following additional special
             policies and procedures shall also be applicable to the evaluation of permit
             applications under this regulation.

                    (A) General. DA permits are required for structures or work in or affecting
             navigable waters of the United States. However, certain structures or work specified
             in 33 CFR Part 330 are permitted by that regulation. If a structure or work is not
             permitted by that regulation, an individual or regional section 10 permit will be
             required.

                    (B) Artificial Reefs. -- (1) When considering an application for an artificial
             reef, as defined in 33 CFR 322-2(g), the district engineer will review the applicant's
             provisions for siting, constructing, monitoring, operating, maintaining and
             managing the proposed artificial reef and shall determine if those provisions are

                                                       69








            consistent with the following standards:
            (i) The enhancement of fishery resources to the maximum
                    extent practicable;
            (ii) The facilitation of access and utilization by
                    United States recreational and commercial fishermen;
            (iii) The minimization of conflicts among competing
                    uses of the navigable waters or waters overlying the Outer
                    Continental Shelf and of the resources in such waters;
            (iv) The minimization of environmental risks and risks
                    to personal health and property;
                    (v) Generally accepted principles of international law; and
            (vi) The prevention of any unreasonable obstructions tonavigation. If the district
            engineer decides that the applicant's provisions are not consistent with these
            standards, he shall deny the permit. If the district engineer decides that the
            provisions are consistent with these standards, and if he decides to issue the permit
            after the public interest review, he shall make the provisions part of the permit.
                    (2) In addition, the district engineer will consider the National Artificial Reef
            Plan developed pursuant to section 204 of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of
            1984, and if he decides to issue the permit, will notify the Secretary of Commerce of
            any need to deviate from that plan.
                    (3) The district engineer will comply with all coordination provisions
            required by a written agreement between the DOD and the Federal agencies relative
            to artificial reefs.    in addition, if the district engineer decides that further
            consultation beyond the normal public commenting process is required to evaluate
            fully the proposed artificial reef, he may initiate such consultation with any Federal
            agency, state or local government or other interested party.
                    (4) The district engineer will issue a permit for the proposed artificial reef
            only if the applicant demonstrates, to the district engineer's satisfaction, that the title
            to the artificial reef construction material is unambiguous, that responsibility for
            maintenance of the reef is clearly established, and that he has the financial ability to
            assume liability for all damages that may arise with respect to     the proposed artificial
            reef.   A demonstration of financial responsibility might include evidence of
            insurance, sponsorship, or available assets.

                    (i) A person to whom a permit is issued in accordance with these regulations
            and any insurer of that person shall not be liable for damages caused by activities
            required to be undertaken under any terms and conditions of the permit, if the
            permittee is in compliance with such terms and conditions.
                    (ii) A person to whom a permit is issued in accordance with these regulations

                                                         70








            and any insurer of that person shall be liable, the extent determined under
            applicable law, for damages to which paragraph (i) does not apply.
                  (iii) Any person who has transferred title to artificial reef construction
            materials to a person to whom a permit is issued in accordance with these
            regulations shall not be liable for damages arising from the use of such materials in
            an artificial reef, if such materials meet applicable requirements of the plan
            published under section 204 of the National Artificial Reef Plan, and are not
            otherwise defective at the time title is transferred.















































                                                   71




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I                            APPENDIX 11 -
         RESOLUTIONS OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES
I        COMMISSION RELATIVE TO ARTIFICIAL REEFDEVELOPMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

                                 72









                          joint Resolution on Collection of Critical Social and
                          Economic Data for Marine Recreational Fisheries of
                                             The Atlantic Coast


                                                  Prepared by
                  The ASMFC Artificial Reef and Marine Recreational Fisheries Committees



             WHEREAS, marine recreational fishing provides significant sociall. and economic
                    benefits to local, state, and regional communities, and the nation as a whole;
                    and
             WHEREAS, estimates of participation and associated social and economic benefits
                    in marine recreational fishing vary greatly in national data collection efforts;
                    and
             WHEREAS, timely social and economic data are critical in the development of
                    fishery management plans, the consideration of such is mandated by the
                    Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 19"416, as amended,
                    for fisheries management plans developed by the regional fishery
                    management councils; and such data are critical to support tlie development
                    and management of state and federal fisheries programs, in particular during
                    the current austere budgetary climate; and
             WHEREAS, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended, also
                    requires that an Environmental Impact Statement developed for a
                    significant federal action must consider social and economic information in
                    describing the environmental consequences of the proposed action and
                    alternatives to the human environment, despite that there is no federal
                    source of such data; and
             WHEREAS, structure-dependent fish communities constitute a significant portion
                    of the marine recreational catch and the availability of these resources is
                    limited by requisite habitat. And, states have invested significant federal,
                    state, and private resources to enhance marine fisheries habitat and fishing
                    opportunities through establishment of artificial reefs. And., artificial reefs
                    provide a critical reference point for collection of pertinent data for
                    management of vital marine recreational fisheries; and
             WHEREAS, there is a scarcity of current information on the social and economic
                    benefits of artificial reefs. And, random data collection programs have been
                    conducted by several states and the federal government (with add-ons to the
                    MRFSS) to meet state specific and national needs; and


                                                       73









           WHEREAS, there have been no recent comprehensive studies to assess the full
                  extent of such benefits, and the potential is high for development of disparate
                  data collections programs among state and federal agencies yielding
                  incompatible data among programs;
           THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries CommisLAon
                  finds that the collection, analysis, and utilization of pertinent social and
                  economic data to be a high priority. And, that the states are herewith
                  encouraged to -initiate such data programs in coordination with, and
                  consistent with, existing state and federal marine recreational fishery statistics
                  programs. Such efforts should be encouraged and coordinated through the
                  relevant committee(s) established by the Commission and regional fishery
                  management councils in the implementation of statistically compatible
                  interstate and joint state/federal fishery management plans.





























                                                     74











                               Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

                           Resolution In Opposition to the Use of Combustion/
                              Incineration Ash for Artificial Reef Construction



              WHEREAS, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is concerned with
                     the promotion of sound and effective use of artificial reefs in fishery
                     development and management; and

              WHEREAS, the National Artificial Reef Plan, developed pursuant to the National
                     Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-623, Title II) states that "artificial
                     reef materials    ... should minimize environmental risks," and that
                     "Whenever a material is proposed, the standards for function, durability,
                     stability, availability, compatibility, and safety must be assessed and satisfied";
                     and


              WHEREAS, there is a lack of clear federal or state guidelines and standards for the
                     testing and classification of cement-stabilized combustion/ incineration ash;
                     and


              WHEREAS, the ASMFC is concerned that in addressing the growing problem of
                     solid waste disposal, precipitous decisions will be made to use the ocean
                     environment as a disposal outlet for unproven, potentially toxic waste
                     products; and

              WHEREAS, substantial uncertainty exists as to the long-term stability of cement-
                     stabilized combustion/ incineration ash, and the eventual fate of the
                     potentially toxic constituents of this material;

              NOW    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
                     Commission request that the Environmental Protection Agency and the
                     United States Army Corps of Engineers develop and adopt standards for the
                     use of stabilized combustion/ incineration ash products in the marine
                     environment, particularly as artificial reef substrate;


              AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Atlantic States Nlarine Fisheries
                     Commission opposes the use of said stabilized combustion/ incineration ash

                                                         75








                 products as artificial reef substrate and requests that permits not be issued,
                 other than for experimental applications, until such time as these guidelines
                 and standards are adopted; or until the time member states adopt such
                 standards that ensure the protection of the marine environment.









































                                                  76



                                               iiiiin@@i-iiiiiiiiih                                 1
                                                3 6668 14103 4902                                   1
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                          I
                                                                                                    .I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    I

                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                    lk6-