A PLAN TO STRENGTHEN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE'S NATIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM
New Directions to
Increase Stock Health of Living Marine and Anadromous Resources by Protecting, Conserving, Restoring, and Creating Habitat-- 1996 and Beyond --
August 8, 1996
prepared by:
OFFICE OF HABITAT CONSERVATION NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NOTE TO READERS
We are pleased to approve this plan to strengthen the National Marine Fisheries Service's National Habitat Program. This occasion culminates 22 months of effort beginning in October 1994 when we requested a plan to chart future directions for this important program. Our extensive public dialog with more than 200 constituent groups and government partners contributed significantly to the recommendations and actions in this Plan. Our National Habitat Program now becomes an integral component of the NMFS' commitment as trustee for living marine resources.
This National Habitat Program is one of our highest priorities. After 25 years of solid effort in the shadows of more visible programs, we will now witness major increases related to this vital mission. Habitat research and management programs now are equals to fishery and protected resource programs.
This document is a testament to the successes of our National Habitat Program. The Plan builds on the strengths of our long-standing commitment to habitat research and management, and sets the stage for continued success as we address new challenges. Now our attentions must shift to implementation. We will reaffirm our habitat priorities in the NMFS Strategic Plan, expand our partnerships, shift toward more holistic ecosystem approaches, increase our scientific understanding, and pursue the authorities and resources to succeed. Each of us shares the burden of this challenge. We look forward to working with you as we strengthen the National Marine Fisheries Service's commitment to sound habitat research and management.
Our special appreciation is several key individuals. First, the NMFS Habitat Steering Committee members who contributed their time and effort to this National Habitat Plan -- Gordon Thayer, Jim Slawson, Steve Morris, Steve Zimmerman, Mike Ludwig, Jim Meehan, Margaret Lorenz, Paul Perra, and Mike Jahncke. I also thank several other major contributors -- Andy Mager, Chris Mantzaris, Bud Cross, Jane Hannuksela, Jim Bybee, Bob Hoffman, John Naughton, John Stein, John Boreman, Tracy Collier, Tamra Faris, David Rackley, Stan Gorski, K Koski, and Laurie Sullivan. The Office of Habitat Conservation coordinated this planning effort, and their leadership was essential -- Steve Waste, Ralph Lopez, Garry Mayer, Dail Brown, Jim Thomas, and Bess Gillelan. Thanks to each for their vision and dedication. We particularly thank Tom Bigford for his steadfast and significant efforts.
We look forward to continued success!
Rolland A. Schmitten
Assistant Administrator
Nancy Foster
Deputy Assistant Administrator
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Note to Readers ii
Table of Contents iii
Executive Summary iv
Mission iv
Vision iv
Strategic Outcomes iv
NMFS' Habitat Responsibilities for Living Marine Resources v
The Agency's Historical Habitat Program v
Directions for the Next Decade v
Schedule vi
Introduction 1
Themes for Improvement 4
I. Protection and Conservation 4
Background and Findings 4
Recommendations for Action 5
II. Restoration and Creation 12
Background and Findings 12
Recommendations for Action 13
III. Understanding 15
Research Background and Findings 15
Research Recommendations for Action 16
Outreach Background and Findings 18
Outreach Recommendations for Action 18
IV. Operations 18
Background and Findings 18
Recommendations for Action 18
Appendices 22
1. Synthesis of Recommendations from NMFS National Habitat Program Reviews 22
2. Statutory Authorities for NMFS National Habitat Program 23
3. Guidance for the Development of Implementation Plans 25
4. National Habitat Research Plan 29
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mission
To protect, conserve, restore, and create habitats and ecosystems vital to self-sustaining populations of living marine resources under NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service stewardship.
Vision
Healthy resources require viable habitat. The NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service envisions healthy, self sustaining habitat for living marine resources. The National Habitat Program will strive to focus staff, budget, and priorities to make the greatest possible difference in sustaining living marine resources and their habitats. This vision will require new efforts to protect, conserve, restore, and create habitats and associated ecosystems. Success will increase habitat quality and quantity, with benefits to resources and constituents. This vision parallels priority elements in the NOAA Strategic Plan to rebuild sustainable fisheries, recover protected species, and sustain healthy coasts, integrated appropriately with other NOAA offices. Program priorities will also reflect NMFS priorities related to riverine, estuarine, coastal, and oceanic habitats that are essential for anadromous and marine species.
Strategic Outcomes
(1) Protect and conserve habitats from human-induced degradation;
(2) Restore degraded habitats; and
(3) Create habitats with greater value than at present.
NMFS' Habitat Responsibilities for Living Marine Resources
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages living marine resources from the inland reach of anadromous fish seaward through the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. In cooperation with other NMFS programs and colleagues elsewhere, the NMFS National Habitat Program supports this mandate by protecting, conserving, restoring, and creating habitats necessary to build sustainable fisheries, recover protected species, and maintain the ecosystems that support those populations. Our leadership role has improved marine environmental quality and contributed to resource management. Still, habitat degradation and loss continue to threaten living marine resources and to impose significant ecological and economic losses. This Plan is an activity-based blueprint for improving the research and management programs that can reduce habitat losses. Our audience is largely those NOAA and NMFS programs with a direct role in implementation. An executive summary for non-NOAA partners will be prepared with less emphasis on specific action, more background on habitat issues, and specific examples of partnership opportunities.
The Agency's Historical Habitat Program
NOAA/NMFS has supported an active habitat program since the agency was created in 1970. While the rate of habitat loss has declined, continued erosion of ecological function and total acreage confirms that the agency must reaffirm its research and management priorities. Human population growth, burgeoning development, and associated degradation continue to overwhelm NMFS efforts to protect, conserve, restore, and create habitats. Cumulative impacts and fiscal constraints complicate our mission. NMFS will address these new challenges by expanding its most successful programs and by embarking on new initiatives, as warranted.
Directions for the Next Decade
Planning and strong leadership are essential for the NMFS National Habitat Program to pursue its vision and achieve its goals. The extent of our success hinges on the agency's ability to acquire new resources, strengthen legislative authorities, and shift internal priorities. While this Plan provides the basic directions for the National Habitat Program, our specific plans and goals will evolve as implementation plans are prepared by each regional and headquarters office. Individually, those implementation plans will provide geographic and topical specificity. In combination, the plans will emphasize the values, threats, and challenges that are common to several regions or are crucial to the NMFS.
This National Habitat Plan and the resulting implementation plans will form the basis for a strengthened National Habitat Program. Our intent is to build from the recommendations contained in a series of Program reviews conducted since 1990 (Appendix 1). Those recommendations have been supplemented by input from NMFS offices in headquarters and the regions plus public meetings involving hundreds of constituent groups. We have reviewed our enabling legislation and compared those mandates (Appendix 2) to our expectations, available resources, and the prospects of additional staff, increased budgets, or strengthened mandates. This Plan identifies those activities that emerged as most important for a successful program, beginning with immediate actions that can be accomplished with existing resources and expanding as new resources become available (see page 3 for further explanation of phased implementation).
Schedule
An earlier draft Plan was circulated for public review on September 28, 1995. NMFS leadership reviewed comments from more than a dozen outside groups and selected this preferred course of action. This Plan identifies the recommendations and actions that must be initiated in FY 1996 and accomplished beginning in FY 1997. Office-by-office "implementation plans" will be prepared in early FY 1997, as explained in Appendix 3. Overall implementation will be tracked regularly by the Office of Habitat Conservation based on status reports from each NMFS office. The National Habitat Plan and the implementation plans will be revised as warranted.
INTRODUCTION
This National Habitat Plan (the "Plan") implements the new vision for the National Marine Fisheries Service's Office of Habitat Conservation. The following recommendations and actions are closely integrated with NMFS priorities, the new NMFS organization, and new office roles.
The Plan is based on a renewed NMFS commitment to:
o the habitats of living marine resources;
o expanded partnerships within NOAA; and,
o improved communications and collaboration with our colleagues and constituents outside NOAA.
The Plan will remain strongly based in the NMFS regions, with vital headquarters contributions. Headquarters will provide national leadership and oversight. This network of regional and headquarters offices involved in research, management, and communications represents the National Habitat Program (the "Program").
One of our early implementation steps will be to incorporate the Plan's recommendations and actions into the developing NOAA and NMFS Strategic Plans, as appropriate. That long-term commitment is well underway with the NOAA Strategic Plan through the budget process and will be expanded to the NMFS Strategic Plan as that document is developed.
This National Habitat Plan addresses four major themes:
Protection and Conservation -- Assess human-induced impacts at levels ranging from site-specific to ecosystems, provide scientifically-based advice to reduce or eliminate those impacts, and form partnerships to protect and conserve habitats of living marine resources;
Restoration and Creation -- Restore and create habitat, thereby reversing the net loss occurring from continued growth and development or resulting from natural events;
Understanding -- Obtain and interpret scientific information needed to manage important habitats, increase awareness of habitat values, and enhance the NMFS role in habitat protection, conservation, restoration, and creation activities; and
Operations -- Augment program actions by improving policy, budget, staffing, and other key components of the National Habitat Program. Each theme is addressed in a separate chapter with a "Background and Findings" section and a series of "Recommendations" with specific actions. This Plan includes 22 recommendations and 74 actions. As NMFS acts to fulfill its vision, each will be weighed against regional and national priorities, available resources, and the prospects of new staff and budget as we develop implementation plans.
This Plan commits the Program to:
o Implement a common agency vision of the National Habitat Program's role in achieving national living marine resource management objectives, and translate that vision into agency resource allocations.
o Coordinate environmental research and management to address key habitat issues more effectively, with an emphasis on riverine, estuarine, coastal, and oceanic areas.
o Emphasize proactive approaches with benefits to living marine resources and their habitat, including an increased connection with fishery and protected species management.
o Pursue interagency and public-private partnerships to leverage technical capabilities and fiscal resources, resulting in increased effectiveness.
o Develop scientific and management capabilities to expand permit and license considerations to include cumulative, secondary, and indirect impacts within an ecosystem (or watershed/drainage basin) context.
o Establish effective lines of communication with constituents concerning NMFS National Habitat Program to share our mission, vision, strategic goals, priorities, and progress.
Each recommendation includes specific actions to be implemented during a general timeframe based on staff, budgets, and priorities:
N = near term; initiated shortly after Plan approval and completed within one year
M = mid term; initiated within the first year but continuing on a phase dictated by resources and priorities
L = long term; initiated when feasible and completed when possible
Specific priorities for all recommendations and actions will be developed as part of the implementation plans to be developed by each region and headquarters office. NMFS does not expect to accomplish all tasks nationwide in the first year but to provide a framework with flexibility so each office may focus effort according to its priorities. This phased approach reveals our long-term Program direction, ranks near-term priorities, and reiterates the need for increased staff and budget.
The agency's vision is healthy habitat for living marine resources. For the purposes of this Plan, habitat is defined as the physical, chemical, geological, and biological surroundings that support healthy, self-sustaining populations of living marine resources. Habitat includes both the physical component of the environment which attracts living marine resources (e.g., salt marshes, seagrass beds, coral reefs) and the chemical and biological characteristics that are necessary to support living marine resources.
Habitat needs may vary seasonally and according to life stage. The National Habitat Program will place its highest priorities on vulnerable and valuable life stages (e.g., molting crabs, reproducing adults), places of natural concentration (e.g., migratory routes, spawning sites), key habitats (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation beds, shellfish reefs, coral reefs), or major habitat impacts (e.g., chemical spills, blocked anadromous fish streams, dredged shellfish beds, shaded marshes).
THEMES FOR IMPROVEMENT
I. PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Background and Findings:
Protecting and conserving existing habitat is significantly less costly than restoring or creating habitat. Several NMFS regions devote a majority of their staff time to Federal actions such as private and public water development proposals, civil works projects, and water resource plans that presage habitat alterations. This Plan and the specific implementation plans to follow will retain sufficient regional and national flexibility to select the best mix of individual permits or projects, general permits and other sweeping programmatic efforts, public works projects, ecosystem approaches such as watershed management, and other opportunities. The National Habitat Program must consider every option to strengthen mandates, set priorities, focus research, and improve its ability to influence Federal actions affecting habitat.
NMFS derives its habitat authorities from dozens of statutes and executive orders, especially those in Appendix 2. Our most powerful statutes are the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Federal Power Act, Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and Endangered Species Act. Many of those mandates are shared with other agencies or are advisory, thereby restricting the agency's ability to act unilaterally to conserve or protect habitat. That distinction separates the National Habitat Program from most protected species or fishery management programs which operate under specific mandates that ascribe regulatory powers.
While traditional approaches and current priorities have been successful, habitat losses are mounting and living marine resources continue to decline. New initiatives are necessary to complement existing strengths and to support agency efforts in fishery and protected species management. Specific priorities will vary regionally but could include: national and regional policies on recurring issues like dredged material disposal; stronger legislative mandates such as those proposed in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act; improved use of long-term, large-scale controls such as hydropower licenses and conservation plans; and greater focus on stubborn issues such as cumulative/secondary/indirect effects.
This Program theme should be expanded from human-related issues to encompass assessments of natural changes in habitat quantity and quality. That broader mission will offer many new partnership opportunities and will relate closely to our ecosystem/watershed approach.
Recommendations for Action:
I.1. Expand role of NHP in fishery management.
Through legislative proposals and new agency priorities, the National Habitat Program has been challenged to become a more active partner in fishery management. Healthy habitats for harvested species form the basis for long-term economic return. National Habitat Program staff will work with fishery managers to strengthen the relationship between harvest control and habitat protection/conservation, and to ensure that restoration and creation activities are fully considered. Those efforts should encompass the special circumstances related to aquaculture, which often transects habitat, fishery, and protected species management. This will involve efforts to integrate fishery management and habitat protection and conservation activities.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.1.a Identify key interstate and federal fishery management plans that require improved identification of habitat issues. (N)
I.1.b Identify and implement actions required in regions and headquarters to identify habitat issues. (N)
I.1.c Improve habitat coordination efforts with habitat committees of councils and commissions. (M)
I.1.d Ensure that National Habitat Program contributions are timely and accepted. (M)
I.1.e Develop operational agreements to effect these changes, as necessary. (M)
I.2. Expand role of NHP in protected resource management.
The National Habitat Program has also been challenged to become a more active partner in protected resources programs. Candidate and listed species often occupy habitats that are affected by human development or natural perturbations, and are thus of special concern to the National Habitat Program. Examples include river systems that support anadromous fish and beach/marsh systems that support sea turtles. National Habitat Program staff in headquarters and the regions will collaborate with protected species staff to strengthen the relationship between habitat and protected species programs.
Accordingly, NMFS will: I.2.a Clarify the roles of regional and headquarters habitat staff in protected species programs. Distinguish lead and support roles. (N)
I.2.b With headquarters and regional staff, identify those protected species and habitat activities requiring collaboration. (N)
I.2.c As necessary in I.2.b, provide substantive comments on pending actions such as biological opinions and habitat conservation plans, participate in briefings, etc. (M)
I.2.d Develop operational agreements, as necessary. (M)
I.3. Strengthen legislative mandates.
Previous National Habitat Program evaluations have urged NMFS to strengthen its legislative authority to protect and conserve habitat. NMFS recognizes that its habitat mandates are based in many laws and that new legislation could strengthen this Program.
New legislation offers many opportunities. During the past decade NMFS has tracked amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Clean Water Act, Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), Water Resources Development Act, and other key statutes. More recent efforts have expanded to the Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Superfund, Oil Pollution Act, and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA). The agency's needs are best represented by proposed improvements in the 1996 MFCMA reauthorization language that will clarify NMFS' role and connect habitat activities to other agency priorities:
o Define "essential fish habitat."
o Use the expertise and resources of the NMFS National Habitat Program to assist the regional fishery management councils in their efforts to identify and conserve fish habitat and to improve the habitat provisions of fishery management plans (FMPs).
o Enhance the role of councils by developing FMP amendments that identify essential fish habitats, describe major threats, and recommend conservation measures.
o Coordinate with NOAA programs to ensure support for fish habitat conservation.
o Increase intra-agency and interagency cooperation and consultation on essential fish habitat issues.
While the Magnuson Act amendments would clarify the NMFS role in habitat conservation for species managed pursuant to the MFCMA, it is vital that the National Habitat Program take maximum advantage of existing opportunities to achieve other improvements. In some instances new priorities are warranted, not new legislative authorities.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.3.a Continue to support the Magnuson Act consistent with the above improvements. (N)
I.3.b Convene a national workshop to implement essential fish habitat provisions. (N)
I.3.c Seek full implementation of existing legislative mandates and new legislative improvements to improve the habitat program. (M)
I.3.d Pursue partnerships with other NOAA programs that could support habitat conservation. (N)
1.4. Establish national and regional policies and guidance.
Written policies and guidance will increase efficiency and effectiveness. National and regional policies will strengthen comment letters, add consistency, and encourage decision makers to adopt NMFS positions. This proactive approach will increase the likelihood that NMFS' recommendations are accommodated in development decisions and ease collaborations in protected resource and fishery management arenas.
The 1983 NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy has provided a framework for the National Habitat Program. That policy could provide a solid basis for new policies and guidance. Many of the priorities identified in the Policy remain valid, and reflect NMFS' heightened interests in habitat activities. For example, NMFS policy statements could: strengthen and streamline NMFS' participation in elevations conducted under Clean Water Act §404(q); clarify our position on state assumptions and state programmatic general permits under the CWA; establish Federal Power Act §18 guidelines for fishways; or provide guidelines for aquaculture facility siting and operation.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.4.a Inventory existing national and regional NMFS policies. (N)
I.4.b Identify regional and national policy development priorities. (See Section IV. Operations) (N)
I.4.c Establish a schedule for preparing and issuing policies. (N)
I.4.d Adopt agency policies in accordance with the standards for review and dissemination.(N)
I.5. Review existing interagency memoranda and seek improvements.
NMFS often supplements its legislative mandates and programmatic initiatives with interagency agreements. Few agreements have been evaluated for overall effectiveness and possible revision. For example, NMFS has several agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) which should be reviewed. The Clean Water Act §404(q) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishes procedures to resolve disputes related the discharge of dredged or fill materials. NMFS should pursue new standards and procedures for interagency review, especially by delegating decision authority involving elevation matters to the Assistant Administrator of Fisheries. Changes should be negotiated at the headquarters level and through improved local operating procedures with each COE District. Interagency agreements on personnel transfers or joint efforts to create habitat should also be revisited.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.5.a Evaluate all existing interagency memoranda for effectiveness, identify priorities, and establish an implementation schedule, and negotiate improvements. (M)
I.5.b Where appropriate, request delegation of authority to the action level. (M)
I.6. Seek institutional partnerships to leverage funds and increase success.
NMFS habitat protection and conservation efforts are generally performed in close cooperation with our partners. As agency roles change in response to legislative and policy actions, NMFS must ensure that its mission is not compromised. For example, agencies often re-assess their advisory roles in Federal water development activities, with implications to NMFS. The appropriate response will vary on a case-by-case basis, and could involve major shifts in Program priorities and resource allocations.
These considerations extend beyond Federal agencies. The state coastal zone management programs and interstate fishery commissions complement NMFS habitat conservation activities. Tribes play a major role in coastal development and anadromous fish issues. And the private sector is now a frequent partner. Accordingly, NMFS should systematically review activities at the national and regional levels and identify opportunities for improved coordination. Where feasible, these efforts should include local governments and non-governmental organizations to improve our success at the local level. Special efforts must also be fostered with regional fishery management councils, especially if the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act is amended to strengthen the habitat provisions (see Sections I.1 and 1.3 above).
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.6.a Evaluate partnerships with Federal, state, regional, local, and tribal governmental organizations to further NMFS' habitat mission, either directly or indirectly. (N)
I.6.b Adjust program priorities to emphasize those partnerships capable of supporting NMFS' habitat mission, e.g., with NOAA's NOS/OCRM and OAR/Sea Grant on ecosystem management and research. (M)
I.6.c Where feasible, increase working relationships with non-governmental groups. (M)
I.7. Improve NMFS participation in ecosystem management partnerships.
Ecosystem management efforts provide a logical extension of the agency's successful efforts at the site-specific level that prevails in individual permit decisions. The Chesapeake Bay Program and Florida Bay Program offer solid extensions into the ecosystem, watershed, drainage basin, or similarly broad ecological context.
This approach is based on agency priorities and our existing mandates. NMFS will document its current level of participation in these efforts and then determine whether to pursue new opportunities. Available staff and budget will continue to affect the level of future participation.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.7.a Inventory NMFS involvement in ecosystem partnerships. (N)
I.7.b Establish criteria based on national and regional needs to determine appropriate NMFS role in watershed, ecosystem, or other special partnerships. (M)
I.7.c Set priorities and select opportunities to develop partnerships with Federal, state, and non-governmental groups. (L)
I.8. Develop and use Habitat Evaluation Teams.
Routine efforts and special situations require that management operations and scientific programs be thoroughly coordinated. General approaches to improve coordination are presented in Section IV on Operations. In certain situations, NMFS staff must be augmented with special teams of management and science personnel. Sample situations for a Habitat Evaluation Team could include complex Federal projects like a mining project near anadromous fish waters, highly technical situations involving mixed contaminants, and projects requiring field visits or testing.
To meet these needs, NMFS will:
I.8.a Establish a pilot Habitat Evaluation Team (HET) to test this approach and address an issue of mutual concern. (N)
I.8.b Evaluate the trial use of a HET and develop recommendations for adoption nationally, including budgets. (M)
I.8.c Implement recommendations. (L)
I.9. Become more proactive in individual project evaluations.
Habitat protection and conservation for individual permits, federal water development projects, and hydropower licenses is largely reactive. Many of the preceding recommendations would shift some additional resources to preapplication work and preventative actions that should be more efficient and effective. Those changes will require that NMFS participate more vigorously in inter-agency coordinating teams and that the agency develop policies and other supportive mechanisms to improve efficiency. These improvements are a logical application of existing mandates, and they must be supported by state-of-the-art information from NMFS science centers and elsewhere.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.9.a Participate, where possible, in preapplication planning and other proactive efforts. (M)
I.9.b Use NMFS national and regional policies to provide advance notice of acceptable development practices. (L)
I.10. Identify program benefits of increased staff and funds and opportunities to leverage elsewhere.
The agency's habitat protection and conservation activities, including the scientific research efforts upon which they depend, should be expanded and improved with increased funding and staff. Our success will be heightened by using those funds to leverage cooperation from our partners. One long-standing opportunity relates to advisory services. Our traditional permit review activities could be improved by better information (see Section III.1), greater consideration of cumulative impacts (see Section III.3), and computer technology (see Sections III.3 and IV.6). Proactive activities would benefit from watershed planning and other large-scale assessment programs. Some benefits are available with existing staff but significant improvements will require new resources.
Water quality assessments offer one example of how these efforts could be leveraged with our partners. Traditionally, NMFS has focused its habitat conservation efforts on acreage rather than chemical integrity. This priority is logical as quality provides few benefits without quantity, but quality is becoming more important as agencies improve their efforts to stem the net loss of habitat acres. The prospects of fulfilling our broader mandates are daunting. Compared to our traditional roles, habitat staff are less prepared to address water quality issues such as: water quality standards; contaminants in dredged materials; wastewater discharge permits; and non-point source pollution. Some of these opportunities may be addressed through policy review or watershed planning efforts, plus permit reviews. NMFS must work with the Environmental Protection Agency and others to advance its interests in the ecological impacts of diminished water quality.
NMFS participates in many watershed planning efforts, but participation is limited by existing Program resources. A thorough review should reveal opportunities where NMFS National Habitat Program objectives can be furthered. NMFS places a high priority on seeking additional resources, and will consider using new staff or funds to improve traditional advisory services and watershed planning efforts and water quality assessments.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
I.10.a Develop specific plans to seek new funds, leverage funds with partners, or otherwise support implementation. (N)
I.10.b Place a high priority on these activities in NMFS' budget initiatives. (M)
I.10.c Provide funding, training, and logistical support for NMFS participation in these new or expanded program activities. (M)
II. RESTORATION AND CREATION
Background and Findings:
Habitat restoration and creation complements protection and conservation in our efforts to retain habitat function and value. While protection and conservation are more cost effective, restoration is evolving as a valid technique to reverse habitat loss. NMFS' leadership role in restoration and creation projects offers the opportunity to promote this important component of the National Habitat Program and lead our partners. Creation is a closely related challenge, often complicated by the absence of similar habitat in the area. Instead of restoring a habitat degraded by pollution or previous human activity the mission becomes converting a low-valued yet functional area into one with higher values. Management decisions associated with creation can be more difficult than for restoration, where improvements are related to habitat degradation rather than weighing societal preferences for one habitat versus another.
The socio-economic and ecological challenges of restoration and creation are immense. Many developed areas offer numerous opportunities to restore degraded habitats, and unavoidable habitat losses will continue to push restoration and creation to the forefront. The increasing use of mitigation banking is one example of these trends.
Restoration and creation will become more readily accepted as demonstration projects are completed and standardized methods and protocols are adopted. NMFS will play a leadership role in documenting expected outcomes, setting performance monitoring criteria, and measuring success.
Recommendations for Action:
II.1. Establish habitat restoration and creation as integral strategy/tools in resource and ecosystem management.
Living marine resource management has historically focussed on mortality/take controls to maintain resource populations and productivity. Healthy habitat supports natural productivity and is now considered an essential component of successful resource management.
Habitat degradation may reduce productivity and overall ecosystem health. As acknowledged by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, these losses are major factors contributing to poor harvests, depleted stocks, and listed species. Restoration and creation must be integrated with traditional management efforts.
Opportunities abound to implement this recommendation. However, coastal habitat restoration and creation can be costly. That limitation requires NMFS to seek partnerships where funds may be leveraged with resources from the public and private sectors. For example, NMFS could participate more directly in Coastal America, where restoration projects at Department of Defense base closure sites could improve large expanses of coastal shallows. The agency could also pursue restoration initiatives on forest lands to benefit Pacific coast salmon or along migratory routes to riverine spawning grounds for Atlantic shad and river herrings. One specific task under II.1.b will be to improve the existing Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to allow use of federal funds to enhance environmental outcomes of federal projects. NMFS should work with DOC/NOAA and our federal partners to clarify administrative procedures so managers can adopt or revise interagency agreements to improve restoration partnerships and leverage funds, including those related to mitigation banking.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
II.1.a Pursue opportunities to use restoration and creation to benefit habitats, especially on an ecosystem basis; including mitigation banking agreements. (N)
II.1.b Identify and develop creative funding mechanisms to support restoration and creation activities. (N)
II.1.c Evaluate and improve existing agreements and seek new agreements that will increase effectiveness. (M)
II.1.d Initiate discussions with resource managers to incorporate restoration and creation goals into specific plans, e.g., fishery management plans and recovery plans, and individual decisions. (M)
II.2. Focus the natural resource damage assessment process on habitat restoration.
Natural resource damage assessments (NRDA) provide the economic, ecological, and legal basis to restore public benefits lost when trust resources are degraded or lost. These NRDAs are a vital component of NOAA's Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, which implements the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). The proposed emphasis on restoration requires a shift from a monetary value basis in damage claims to a system that also includes ecological improvements needed to restore affected resources and services. This transition has been proposed in the OPA regulations but needs to be adopted throughout NOAA's NRDA activities.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
II.2.a Develop NRDA case selection criteria to ensure decisions are based on full consideration of resource restoration feasibility, ecological/economic value, and cost factors. (N)
II.2.b Increase participation by NMFS regional office and science center laboratory staff in NRDA activities. (M)
II.2.c Conduct pilot projects to evaluate alternative restoration and creation options, as appropriate. (M)
II.3. Use NRDA actions to enhance state restoration expertise.
OPA and CERCLA encourage state/Federal cooperation to integrate natural resource damage claims. These co-trustee relationships provide an opportunity to share the technical and administrative obligations of restoration. NMFS often accepts a leadership role and now seeks to delegate a portion of its caseload to its co-trustees. These partnerships will improve overall program effectiveness and enable NMFS to pursue other cases.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
II.3.a Develop guidance documents and criteria to facilitate habitat restoration. (M)
II.3.b Facilitate information and technology transfer among co-trustees through support of regional workshops and demonstration projects. (M)
II.3.c Support increased state participation for restoration project development, management oversight, and/or implementation. (L)
III. UNDERSTANDING
The NMFS National Habitat Program represents a renewed commitment to understand habitat functions and values and to communicate that knowledge to others. Habitat research is a high priority that will be pursued through the NOAA/NMFS science hierarchy and in full cooperation with all NMFS programs.
Habitat degradation and loss are among the greatest long-term threats to living marine resources. To address those threats new research and syntheses of available information must form the basis of ecologically-based, defensible management decisions. The agency's strong scientific program can contribute to that effort, and can help the agency pursue partnerships with colleagues in NOAA and elsewhere. The best scientific information must be communicated to partners in the public and private sectors so NOAA/NMFS can pursue its habitat management and research objectives.
Research Background and Findings:
NMFS has always had a strong research program, recognized both nationally and internationally. However, habitat research has never been a high priority, been adequately funded, or been organized as a national program. The result has been scientifically-sound investigations that do not always address all NMFS priorities, such as habitat issues. The habitat research component of that program needs to be accorded a higher priority and supported with adequate funding. This Plan provides the basis for a complete NMFS habitat research program, coupled with partners in NOAA and elsewhere. A national structure for a habitat research program now exists in the National Habitat Program's research plan, which was approved in 1995 (Appendix 4). The plan encompasses five areas of research needs, and represents our commitment to communicate our knowledge to others:
o Understand the structure and function of natural ecosystems, their linkages, and their role in supporting and sustaining the abundance, distribution, and health of living marine resources.
o Quantify the response of habitats and living marine resources to natural and anthropogenic alterations.
o Develop and evaluate new techniques to restore or create productive habitats of living marine resources.
o Develop indicators to simplify determinations of habitat impacts to or recovery.
o Synthesize research and communicate findings to managers.
Research Recommendations for Action:
III.1. Implement the NMFS Habitat Research Plan.
The NMFS National Habitat Program has developed a Habitat Research Plan that provides the framework for research that will meet the changing needs of management. The Office of Habitat Conservation will work with NMFS regions and headquarters offices to coordinate implementation. Success will hinge on an appropriate reallocation of existing NMFS resources and acquisition of new funds, either directly within NOAA or indirectly through partnerships and leverage.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
III.1.a Designate a habitat research contact within each region. (N)
III.1.b Adopt the NMFS Habitat Research Plan as a national framework for NMFS research. (M)
III.1.c Extend the intent of the NMFS Habitat Research Plan to other NOAA elements (e.g., OAR, NOS, COP) and others (e.g., DOI/NBS, states). (M)
III.2. Evaluate research programs and set management priorities.
The NMFS Science Center laboratories currently conduct research that meets some National Habitat Program priorities but other needs remain unfulfilled. NMFS regional operations and science staffs will lead an effort involving headquarters to identify NMFS habitat research needs and to help meet those needs through NMFS research or externally through partnerships with other NOAA elements, academia, etc.
Habitat management and research needs differ regionally. Coordination must begin with a regional process designed to communicate habitat information needs and concerns among regional managers and researchers, to present research summaries, and to review funding sources (base and non-base). The NMFS Southeast Region has developed a useful template for other regions or entire coasts. Meeting results should be reviewed regularly.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
III.2.a Inventory current habitat research activities in NMFS and elsewhere (especially NOAA). (N)
III.2.b Develop a process to set regional priorities for NMFS' habitat research funding. (M)
III.2.c Pursue research and pursue partnerships to meet priority needs identified in III.2.b. (M)
III.2.d Develop budget initiatives based on priority needs. (M)
III.2.e Develop protocols for protection, conservation, restoration, and creation techniques designed for species and habitats. (M)
III.2.f Develop guidelines to measure project performance and establish monitoring programs. (M)
III.3. Share research results, technology, and information with NMFS offices, partners, and constituents.
The research results and information developed through the actions in Section III.2 must be transferred to habitat managers. This action step should also include lessons learned during demonstration projects. The primary recipients should be NMFS program personnel but the information should prove useful to others.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
III.3.a Establish a system to track technical and procedural findings and lessons learned; share data and publish results. (M)
III.3.b Identify best management practices in agriculture, forestry, mining, etc. (L)
III.3.c Develop Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for the purpose of evaluating essential fish habitat, cumulative impacts, restoration initiatives, etc.; coordinate with Section IV.6. (M)
III.3.d Develop electronic means to transmit important research findings and data. (L)
Outreach Background and Findings:
In cooperation with NMFS and NOAA efforts, the National Habitat Program plans a new outreach and communication program. Our efforts will explain National Habitat Program intentions, share research results, and maintain regular communication with partners, among other applications. These efforts will support the entire National Habitat Program. Activities which are directly related to the Understanding theme are included in this section. Refer to Recommendation IV.5 for related actions.
Outreach Recommendations for Action:
III.4. Develop synthesis documents.
Much of the information needed by NMFS habitat managers is available yet not packaged for decision makers. Vital information has oftentimes not been analyzed for relevancy or evaluated for accuracy. NMFS scientists can play a vital role in filling this void, either directly or in collaboration with partners.
Accordingly, NMFS will: III.4.a Identify information needs that could be met with a synthesis document. (N)
III.4.b Convey those needs to the NMFS Office of Science and Technology and other partners. (M)
IV. OPERATIONS
Background and Findings:
This section addresses the basic tools for program success. Specific improvements are identified in Sections I, II, and III of this Plan; those that apply broadly are listed here.
Recommendations for Action:
IV.1. Identify priority issues.
The condition of, and threats to, living marine resources and their habitats vary regionally. NMFS has established a strategic planning process to set priorities for regional and headquarters activities. The National Habitat Program will participate fully in this process.
This task will involve frequent contact with our constituents and partners. Priorities will be revisited periodically as they will form the basis for budget and management decisions.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
IV.1.a Set Program priorities in regional and headquarters implementation plans. (N)
IV.1.b Review priorities regularly, with annual checks to determine minor adjustments. (L)
IV.2. Develop a methodology to monitor program accomplishments.
The NMFS National Habitat Program contributes significantly to habitat efforts nationwide. To document those contributions, NMFS is seeking the funds and technical assistance to develop measures of program performance and habitat health. Once adopted, the tracking systems or reports will provide quantitative and qualitative measures of Program success and will help set priorities, allocate resources, and influence decisions.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
IV.2.a Evaluate the effectiveness of NMFS National Habitat Program. (N)
IV.2.b Select a monitoring methodology that provides quantitative and qualitative measures of program activity and success. (N)
IV.2.c Implement the new performance measure in FY 97. (M)
IV.2.d Monitor implementation and adjust as necessary. (M)
IV.2.e Report findings annually, beginning with FY 97 report in FY 98. (L)
IV.3. Seek necessary budget and staff.
Full implementation of all recommendations and each action will require additional budget and staff. Program priorities will be established, but many mid- (M) and long- term (L) needs will require increased support or reordered NMFS priorities. Those facts must be highlighted in NOAA's and NMFS' Strategic Plans and reflected in budget initiatives. Some actions can proceed immediately but many must await new staff or increased budgets.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
IV.3.a Identify unfunded, high-priority activities, and rank them at the regional and national level. (N)
IV.3.b Quantify the resources needed to support each activity, and whether resources exist that may be reallocated or whether new resources must be obtained. (N)
IV.3.c Evaluate all activities and establish a long-term implementation schedule; incorporate results into budget allocation processes and NOAA and NMFS Strategic Plan elements. (M)
IV.4. Develop an outreach/communication plan
The agency's information exchange efforts include sharing research results, explaining National Habitat Program intentions and the importance to habitat, and maintaining regular communication with partners. This dialogue is essential to establish priorities, encourage partnerships, and announce successes. The Program will emphasize opportunities offering the greatest benefits. Limited resources will require a very focussed outreach effort, e.g., sharing program priorities with potential partners or ensuring that basic ecological research results are provided to Councils and Commissions working with NMFS to identify essential fish habitats. Our objectives include building support, inspiring partnerships, leveraging resources, and using those rewards to strengthen the Program. It is imperative that a cohesive, aggressive communication effort be established as an important vehicle for implementing this Plan.
This effort supports the NMFS Customer Service and Public Outreach Policy. By coordinating with the NMFS campaign we will strengthen our effort and improve the prospects of success.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
IV.4.a Designate a coordinator in the Office of Habitat Conservation and a liaison in each NMFS' regional office. (N)
IV.4.b Identify priority needs and opportunities. (M)
IV.4.c Review successful outreach strategies to select a NMFS' strategy to promote habitat awareness. (N)
IV.4.d Develop an Outreach Plan with partnerships, funding sources, milestones, educational and informational products, and a mechanism for periodic reviews. (N)
IV.5. Evaluate opportunities to employ new technologies.
With opportunities exceeding our staff and fiscal capabilities, the NMFS National Habitat Program must consider computer systems, emerging technologies, and other tools that will increase overall efficiency and success. This need is affirmed in Section III.3 above with respect to research, but the need extends throughout the National Habitat Program. One potential tool might be data manipulation software such as geographic information systems that could provide visual displays of the relationship among human activities, habitat health, and trust resources. Other opportunities could include modeling to link changes in land cover to water quality and effects on living marine resources, using National Weather Service hydrographic data to influence water allocations affecting anadromous fish, and using bibliographic search programs to supplement our information collection and synthesis activities.
Accordingly, NMFS will:
IV.5.a Survey opportunities to improve our overall effectiveness and efficiency. (M)
IV.5.b Develop priorities and seek partnerships or funding. (M)
APPENDIX 1
SYNTHESIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM HABITAT PROGRAM REVIEWS
NMFS should:
(1) Establish a new habitat office that focuses on habitat issues. Place the program on an equal footing with all other NMFS headquarters program offices.
(2) Provide full funding for the staff and resource needs to meet habitat program mandates.
(3) Seek improvements in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Rivers and Harbors Act, and/or Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act or MFCMA) to strengthen Commerce's habitat authorities.
(4) Place immediate attention on a FWCA amendment to identify NMFS' mandate to protect marine habitats.
(5) Provide habitat program director with more authority to oversee regional priorities.
(6) Structure the NMFS habitat research program to support the habitat program. Allow the habitat program director greater control of habitat research funds.
(7) Revise the NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy.
(8) Implement a strategic plan that is truly national in scope and impact.
(9) Develop criteria for project elevations and referrals.
(10) Renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(11) Develop a comprehensive national tracking system to measure program progress and accomplishments.
APPENDIX 2
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES FOR NMFS NATIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM
The NMFS National Habitat Program derives most of its authorities from the following:
o Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 -- established NOAA.
o Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act -- mandates Federal permitting and licensing agencies to consult with NMFS on activities affecting habitat.
o Federal Power Act -- authorizes NMFS to prescribe fish passage and recommend license conditions to protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and their habitat at federally licensed hydropower projects.
o National Environmental Policy Act -- establishes framework for public involvement in environmental reviews of Federal actions.
o Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act -- establishes programs related to ocean dumping (Title I), research (Title II), and national marine sanctuaries (Title III).
o Endangered Species Act -- requires NMFS to protect species listed as endangered or threatened, protect the species' habitat, and seek to restore the ecosystems upon which those species depend.
o Oil Pollution Act of 1990 -- designates NOAA as the lead agency for development of natural resource damage assessment methodologies and a lead Federal agency in oil spill responses.
o Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 -- requires authorization of proposed projects on navigable waters.
o Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) -- wetlands provisions cover disposal of dredged or fill materials; other provisions cover ocean discharges and other related activities.
o Coastal Zone Management Act -- encourages state coastal management programs to address habitat issues such as development and water quality.
o Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act -- provides the basis for NOAA/NMFS trusteeship for marine resources at sites contaminated by chronic chemical discharges.
o Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act -- provides mandate to prepare fishery management plans for species in the EEZ, including role of habitat in overall stock health.
o Marine Mammal Protection Act -- mandates NMFS to conserve and manage marine mammals.
o Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act -- established focus on electric power and protection, mitigation, and enhancement of Columbia River basin fish and wildlife.
o Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act -- requires FERC, in considering small hydropower projects, to accept NMFS' conditions to prevent the loss of, or damage to, fish and wildlife resources.
o Coastal Wetlands, Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act -- establishes national wetland protection and restoration program, with major effort in Louisiana.
o Section 307 of the NOAA Authorization Act of 1992 -- establishes the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office.
o Executive Order 11988 -- provides special standing to floodplains.
o Executive Order 11990 -- establishes high priority for wetland protection.
APPENDIX 3
GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
SCHEDULE: The Assistant Administrator has instructed each headquarters and regional office to submit an Implementation Plan for its office shortly after National Habitat Plan approval. The schedule will be specified in a separate memorandum.
OBJECTIVES: Implementation Plans are the primary mechanism to:
o Identify regional, headquarters, and national priorities.
o Describe those recommendations and actions related to priorities that emerge as the basis of the National Habitat Program's efforts during the near term (beginning with Plan approval), with secondary emphasis on the longer term.
o Track progress by individual office and for the NMFS National Habitat Program.
o Identify needs for specific legislative, policy, outreach, or budget action.
STANDARDIZED CONTENT: Each individual Implementation Plan shall contain the following:
o Title Page - List office, e.g., Office of Protected Resources or Northwest Region (Operations and Science Center), key contact (with phone and fax), and date.
o Table of Contents - List activities in alpha-numeric order patterned after the National Habitat Plan.
o Executive Summary - Include a brief rationale for priority "recommendations" and "activities" to be undertaken, with references to the National Habitat Plan.
o Activities - Describe specific activities according to the outline at the end of this Appendix.
PREPARING IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: Each regional and headquarters office may exercise flexibility in developing its Implementation Plan. However, the consistent format (listed above) and the following recommended process will strengthen our effort and simplify F/HC's efforts to track progress. As appropriate, offices are encouraged to:
o Coordinate with other NOAA elements to identify partners and opportunities, e.g., F/HC meet with R/SG to discuss research activities, F/SE coordinate with N/ORCA on regional ecosystems efforts like South Florida. o Involve habitat staff from relevant units, e.g., regions include staff from laboratories and field stations, headquarters offices involve each division.
o Identify a staff coordinator to ensure national consistency and consistency with the National Habitat Plan, e.g., identify key person who will be primary contact for other offices.
o Invite constituents to participate in developing and/or reviewing activities to be included in the Implementation Plan.
REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: Certain National Habitat Plan recommendations and activities are expected to emerge as high priorities in most or all offices; that suite of activities will form the cornerstone of our National Habitat Program. Another set of activities are likely to be identified which will require supplemental resources; that set will form the basis for future budget initiatives. The first set of near-term priorities will be determined with input from office coordinators shortly after National Habitat Plan approval and before the offices begin to prepare their Implementation Plan. Each office will be required to address those recommendations and activities that are deemed by the National Habitat Program to be the highest priority.
F/HC ROLE: The Office of Habitat Conservation is responsible for implementing the National Habitat Plan. F/HC will exercise its oversight responsibilities through regular communications with the offices and senior NMFS leaders. The office will work directly with the Assistant Administrator and the Deputy AA to ensure that office products are adequate that schedules are met.
Within budget constraints, the Office of Habitat Conservation will provide the following assistance to any headquarters office or regional office:
o Assist in workshops and/or processes to develop office Implementation Plans.
o Review draft Implementation Plan materials.
o Maintain a national depository of background materials and office Implementation Plans.
o Ensure electronic availability of office and national Implementation Plans for use in reporting progress and tracking results.
o Operate a tracking process with quarterly reports on the status of implementing the NMFS National Habitat Plan.
Content Requirements for Activity Descriptions in Implementation Plans
Habitat Plan Recommendation and Activity to be Addressed: Cite the activity(ies) in the National Habitat Plan most directly related to the implementation action. The "primary" activity is directly related; "secondary" activities will flow from the primary action. Present according to National Habitat Plan activity code, e.g., Activity II.2.a:
Primary Code _____ (Identify the code from the National Habitat Plan)
Secondary Codes _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ (Identify other National Habitat Plan recommendation(s) and action(s) that relate to the activity on a secondary basis, not to exceed five such actions)
Responsible Organizational Unit: Use the NMFS organizational acronym and name to identify the specific office, division, or branch responsible for the activity, e.g., F/SWO22 - Southwest Regional Office, Northern California Field Office. Please include specific field office, investigation name, etc. as warranted.
Name of Activity Leader and phone number: List name, phone number, and fax number for primary contact.
Objective: In one paragraph, describe the proposed action and its intended accomplishments in the office. Include connections to NMFS performance measures such as amending a specific fishery management plan or developing a budget initiative.
Background: Briefly (one or several paragraphs) describe any background information necessary to allow the reader to understand the context in which the activity will be undertaken, including schedules, intermediate milestones, quantitative and qualitative criteria for success, etc.
APPENDIX 4
The Habitat Research Plan of the National Marine Fisheries Service
by Gordon W. Thayer1, James P. Thomas2, K.V. Koski3
1 Leader, Fishery Habitat Utilization Team, and Habitat Coordinator for Southeast Fisheries Science Center NOAA, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, NC 28516. e mail: gthayer@hatteras.bea.nmfs.gov
2 Formerly West Coast and Northeast Regional Team Leader, NOAA/NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation, Restoration Center, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Now with the Watershed Division at same address. e mail: james_thomas@ssp.nmfs.gov
3 Fishery Research Biologist and Habitat Restoration Team Leader, NOAA/NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, AK 99801. e mail: kkoski@abl.afsc.noaa.gov.gov
ABSTRACT
A responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is to develop the necessary understanding, using basic and applied research and literature syntheses, to help conserve, protect, and restore habitats of living marine resources. The NMFS National Habitat Program has developed a Habitat Research Plan to direct and conduct research and transfer results to management components within NMFS involved in permit reviews, development of the habitat sections of Fishery Management Plans and protected species Recovery Plans, and development of restoration options and plans as part of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment claims. The plan also is designed to develop the necessary expertise to accomplish or oversee the restoration, creation, or acquisition of habitat to benefit living marine resources. This plan provides guidance in four areas -- ecosystem structure and function, effects of alterations, development of restoration methods, and development of indicators of impact and recovery. The plan emphasizes a fifth area -- the need for syntheses and timely scientific information to managers. The plan is designed not only as an umbrella document under which to organize habitat research within NMFS but also as a guide that can and will be modified as habitat issues and/or responsibilities change.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is the principal steward of living marine resources (LMRs) in the U.S. Resource viability depends in part on habitat protection, maintenance, and restoration. Habitat loss to pollution and development is among the greatest long-term threats to the future viability of U.S. Fisheries (Burns, 1991; Brouha, 1993; Waste, 1996). NMFS has established a National Habitat Program whose goal is to conserve, protect, and restore the valuable habitats needed to sustain marine and anadromous communities. In the past, the conservation, protection, and restoration of habitat has been accomplished by reviewing licensing, permitting, and legislative and administrative activities that affect LMR and habitats; coordinating with Regional Fishery Management Councils on Fishery Management Plans; and conducting habitat-related research. In the context of this plan, we are using habitat to include not only the physical, chemical, and biological environment of an organism but also the processes that are going on within that environment.
NMFS is restructuring the National Habitat Program to meet current and evolving demands and responsibilities relative to managing habitats and fisheries and protecting threatened and endangered species in coastal and estuarine areas. NMFS has created a coordinated research guidance plan and approach to support its habitat-related mandates as part of the program. The Habitat Research Plan (HRP) was developed with input from scientific and management personnel at both headquarters and field levels. The plan (1) provides a framework to conduct coastal and estuarine research and transfer results to those management components involved in permit reviews, development of the habitat sections of Fishery Management Plans and protected species Recovery Plans, and development of restoration options and plans as part of the Natural Resources Damage Claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Oil Pollution Act; and the Clean Water Act; and (2) will lead to development of the necessary expertise within NMFS to identify habitat impacts and accomplish and oversee the restoration, creation, or acquisition of habitat to benefit LMRs. This paper briefly describes the agency's HRP.
BACKGROUND
Numerous statutes and international conventions and treaties authorize the NMFS mission related to the conservation and restoration of marine habitat. These include but are not limited to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( Superfund"), and Oil Pollution Act (Waste, 1996)). These laws and policies foster conservation of LMRs and their habitats to benefit society without jeopardizing options for the future.
NMFS is highly cognizant of the delicate balance between conservation, protection and utilization of living marine resources for the benefit of society. Indeed, one principal goal of the NMFS Strategic Plan is to "protect LMR habitat" using the following four objectives:
(1) Use legal authority to implement a cohesive strategy to protect and restore habitat.
(2) Assess effects of habitat modifications and contaminants on populations of LMRs.
(3) Determine if artificial or restored habitats fulfill essential needs of LMRs.
(4) Restore depleted stocks affected by habitat modifications.
Living marine resources contribute substantially to the U.S. economy. More than 70% of the commercial fish (by weight) harvested in the United States -- worth $19.8 billion (in value added) to Gross National Product in 1993 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1994) -- depend on coastal, estuarine, and riverine habitat for food, shelter, spawning, and migration (NMFS 1994; Waste 1996). Even in the mid-60s the value of estuarine dependent fishes to our commercial landings was recognized as important, representing nearly two-thirds the value of landings nationally (McHugh, 1966). These habitats also support two-thirds of U.S. recreational fishing which generated approximately $13.5 billion (NMFS 1995). In addition, aquaculture of marine species in coastal waters is expanding rapidly and totalled $242 million in 1992 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994). LMRs also contribute significantly to the subsistence of many individuals and families. The potential contribution of LMRs in the future is even greater as overfished stocks are rebuilt, habitats restored, and threatened and endangered species recover.
Habitat loss from pollution and development threatens the future viability of fisheries in the United States (Burns, 1991; Brouha, 1993) and poses a major national challenge. As human populations in coastal regions grow, LMRs are exposed to increasing pressure from toxic contaminants, excess nutrients, altered freshwater flow, and loss of habitat structure and biological diversity (Thomas, 1995). Toxic compounds in agricultural runoff and industrial effluents contaminate habitats and cause pathologies in fish and shellfish. Excess nutrients in runoff cause eutrophication, and turbidity from erosion and development suppresses production of phytoplankton and submerged vegetation. Even boating can result in long-lasting damage to critical habitats as a result of propeller scour in submerged aquatic vegetation (Sargent et al. 1995) and anchoring on coral reefs. Alteration of freshwater flow regimes by withdrawals, diversions, or poor land-use practices reduces or degrades riverine habitat and increases salt intrusions into estuaries (Thayer, 1992).
The continental United States has lost half of its original coastal wetlands by water diversions, draining, and filling (Dahl, 1990) and estimates of these losses has been published by Dahl and Johnson (1991), Tiner (1991), and Frayer et al. (1983). Habitat loss and degradation, along with overharvesting and climate change, are the principal causes for declining resources (e.g., Boreman, J. Personal communication, NOAA Cooperative Marine Education and Research Program, Univ. MA, Amherst). Because pre-recruitment stages (eggs, larvae, and juveniles) and estuarine-derived forage species are dependent on the coastal zone, both nearshore and resident offshore species can be harmed by degraded shallow coastal and estuarine habitats (Hoss and Thayer, 1993). Population declines include marine and aquatic mammals (e.g., Gulf of California harbor porpoise and manatee), turtles (e.g., loggerhead, Kemp's ridley and green), anadromous fish (e.g., salmon, striped bass, sturgeon, river herring and American shad), and estuarine shellfish (e.g., oysters). While these declines are due to a combination of effects, clearly the impact of habitat degradation is greatest in the coastal region where dramatic increases in human population and attendant activities have and are taking place. As pointed out by Thomas (1995), it is likely that many of the changes in upland land use and cover have initiated or exacerbated estuarine and coastal habitat degradation. More than half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the coast, and nationally coastal communities have the highest rates of growth (U. S. Department of Commerce 1991). Current projections for U. S. population in the coastal zone suggest that even greater losses of critical habitat and LMRs are likely to occur as competition for limited space and resources increases.
THE APPROACH
To protect, conserve, and restore aquatic habitats, NMFS has developed a Habitat Research Plan (HRP) that will systematically guide its research on ecosystem function and linkages to improve scientific understanding and decision-making capability. NMFS emphasizes the collecting and synthesizing of the type of information that will increase its ability to develop and implement management policies. To fully implement the plan requires: (1) a more complete description of the structural and functional aspects of ecosystems; (2) a more integrative approach to understanding the relationship among natural, impacted, restored, or created habitats and LMR; and (3) greater knowledge of the responses of habitats and LMR to natural and anthropogenic impacts.
The Habitat Research Plan provides an overarching research structure that combines basic and applied research with information syntheses on which to base landscape-level habitat management decisions. The concept of landscape ecology includes consideration of fluxes of organisms, materials, and energy within the spatial heterogeneity of the surrounding area (Pickett and Cadenasso, 1995). As pointed out by Pickett and Cadenasso (1995; p. 334) "...the spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems at various scales often influences important functions, ranging from population structure through composition to ecosystem processes...." To ensure that the HRP is broad-based and is responsive to national and regional issues, the plan includes recommendations from NMFS scientists and managers, as well as recommendations from other federal and state agencies and private industries given during a series of NMFS-sponsored habitat workshops held in 1995.
The HRP outlines a systematic approach in five areas (Figure 1). The approach provides a coordinated research program with a foundation in basic ecological research and an agenda of applied research that is responsive to the changing needs of management. Syntheses of research findings and information transfer are key elements of this plan. NMFS research program staff will work closely with other NOAA programs, including the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Coastal Ocean Program, Coastal Services Center (Charleston, SC), and National Sea Grant Program, to meet NOAA's goals, particularly with respect to the NOAA Strategic Plan element on Healthy Coastal Ecosystems (NOAA, 1995). NMFS will work closely with other federal agencies to increase cooperation and partnerships, maximize research information, and reduce potential duplication of research efforts. Funds for this research program will come from a combination of base funds and extramural support.
Research Areas
Area (1): Ecosystem Structure and Function
Understanding the structure and function of natural ecosystems, their linkages to one another, and the role they play in supporting and sustaining LMRs -- their abundance, distribution, and health--is critical. Knowing when and how systems are affected, assessing the cause and degree of impact, and providing the basis for restoring and maintaining these systems are integral to this research area, and must be evaluated in terms of landscape ecology. Research on ecosystem structure and function will provide the necessary foundation for linking all areas of the HRP (Figure 1) and will provide the basis for making fundamentally sound management decisions. Thus, assessing habitat impacts, developing restoration methods and evaluating restoration effectiveness, developing indicators of impact and recovery, and synthesizing and transferring information for the development of management policy and regulations all are dependent on a comprehensive understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning.
Research in this area will include studies on the relationship between habitat and yield of LMR including seasonality and annual variabilities and the influence of chemical and physical fluxes on these relationships. These research efforts will be dependent upon knowledge of basic life histories, habitat structural integrity and limiting factors, and must be evaluated within the context of habitat mosaics or habitat heterogeneity. Therefore, data on habitat location are integral to this research area. Information generated in this research area provides a foundation upon which to make predictions regarding responses of organisms and habitats to perturbations and also predictions of trajectories of recovery or success of restoration, for example.
Area (2): Effects of Habitat Alterations
Knowledge of the causes of observed harm to ecosystems is critical to restoring past losses and preventing future degradation and loss of habitats essential for maintaining and enhancing LMRs. Therefore, quantifying of the response of habitats and LMRs to natural and anthropogenic alterations is not only a prerequisite to determining the degree of impact, predicting the rate of recovery, and recommending the most effective restoration procedures, but it also is a requisite to establishing effective protective measures.
The basis for determining causal relationships depends on an understanding of the natural structure and function of an ecosystem and individual LMR requirements and population characteristics. While NMFS is primarily interested in the maintaining and restoring LMR populations, relating impacts observed at the individual level to effects at the population level has proved difficult. Thus, there is a need to link habitat impacts ultimately to LMR populations.
Studies emphasized will include cause and effect research designed to evaluate responses of LMR and habitats to physical and chemical modifications of coastal and estuarine systems. Research will be encouraged that considers downstream responses to upland modification and role of buffers zones, as well as LMR and habitat responses to physical and waterflow alterations and water quality modifications. Because information will be generated on responses to both individual and cumulative impacts, these studies will provide the basis for guidelines and regulations to protect habitats and develop remedial cleanup standards. These cause and effect databases will furnish information pertinent not only to permit-related activities, but also to NMFS mandated responsibilities in restoration planning and implementation.
Area (3): Habitat Restoration Methods
While methods for restoring certain habitats (e.g., salt marshes and seagrass meadows) exist, most have not been rigorously tested under experimental conditions throughout wide geographic areas and at different scales (see Kusler and Kentula 1989, Cairns 1990, Thayer 1992). Additionally, for other habitats (e.g., coral reefs, intertidal and subtidal substrates, riparian habitat) only limited methodology exists and little emphasis has been placed on rapidly restoring biodiversity and monitoring for success and persistence. Consequently, scientists have viewed a significant proportion of restoration actions with skepticism regarding their success and rates of habitat recovery or development. Current methods to cleanup, restore, or create productive LMR habitats must be improved, and new, innovative techniques must be developed and evaluated using statistically rigorous approaches.
Research topics and areas of concern include analyses of the success of contaminant sequestration; assessment of bioremediation techniques; development and evaluation of new habitat restoration techniques; experiments on transplant species culture techniques; and evaluation of the role and size of buffers and the importance of habitat heterogeneity in the restoration process. Research on restoration will lead to scientific information on trajectories of recovery and stability of created and restored systems including physical, chemical and biological components and processes. Assessments of new techniques and evaluation of current techniques over geographic regions and scales will provide bases for success evaluation. Most importantly, guidelines for improved best management practices and improved restoration planning will be generated.
Area (4): Indicators of Habitat/LMR Impacts and Recovery
Increasing and extensive exploitation of coastal resources demands that indicators be used to simplify the process of determining whether an ecosystem, habitat, or LMR is affected, or is recovering. Developing indicators of impacts and recovery is critical for managers judging the "health" status of a habitat or LMR and the need for corrective actions. Such development must be based on information from comparative research on the structure and function of disturbed, natural, and/or restored habitats. Ideally, habitats of differing ages and geographic locations should be evaluated for a suite of biological, chemical, and physical parameters. Time-dependent biotic population analyses and contaminant-level follow-up evaluations for sediment, biota, and water will be encouraged. This type of research will help managers identify habitat status or "health"; standardize indicators for specific habitats through comparisons across geographic gradients and scales; and develop recommendations on the temporal efficacy of chemical cleanup techniques and most appropriate measures to assess success. NMFS will utilize such guideposts to develop and improve best management practice approaches.
Area (5): Synthesis and Information Transfer
The synthesis and timely transfer of information derived from research findings and the existing literature is a key element of NMFS's National Habitat Program and this HRP. Decisions on permitting, regulation, enforcement, redirection of research efforts, and development and implementation of restoration plans must be made with the best available information. Scientists must step back from their research long enough to provide timely information syntheses to habitat managers. Likewise, NMFS habitat managers must recognize that generic information generated by the scientific community does have powerful application to their site-specific problems.
Technology and information transfer will be expedited through the use of all available information sources and the application of user-friendly information bases. Geographical Information Systems (GIST) provide the opportunity to amass and array large quantities of complex data, thereby, providing potential for relational observations by decision-makers; such use is strongly encouraged. Many areas of synthesis and transfer have been indicated in our brief presentations of the earlier four research areas and will not be repeated here. Additional examples include information syntheses on critical fishery habitats and modes of protection and restoration, development and testing of economic valuation approaches for ecological systems, and synthesis of available information on landscape approaches to basinwide management including permitting and restoration. Such collations of current and evolving information bases are important to Fishery Management Councils and those charged with the protection and recovery of certain species as well as to habitat managers concerned about developing and implementing policy. These syntheses could be done within NMFS, through partnerships with other agencies, and by contract. However, it is important that syntheses be provided in a useable format and even published in outlets available to both scientific and management communities. The scientific community must participate in the synthesis and transfer process.
IMPLEMENTATION
The HRP is divided into five interlinked areas and several elements (Figure 1) that provide a framework for the type of research and continuity needed to effectively manage LMR habitat. In some instances this linkage between research areas may be hierarchical. As we discussed earlier in this paper, research on ecosystem structure and function (Area 1) provides the foundation for linking all areas. For example, knowledge of the structure and function of the ecosystem must be known before one can actually determine the effects of habitat alterations (Area 2), develop restoration methods (Area 3), or develop indicators of impact and recovery (Area 4). There are feedbacks among these areas. As pointed out by Root and Schneider (1995:337) research "... across scales of the interactions within and between the biotic and abiotic effects of disturbances are ... required for system-level understanding and impact assessments." Elements shown for each research area in Figure 1 may vary by region, but they depict the stages and continuity of information required to develop a comprehensive database for making important resource decisions. Research founded on this approach will provide NMFS with a broad information base that is scientifically and ecologically credible, national in scope, and responsive to management needs.
The NMFS has not had a definitive habitat research guidance document under which to organize its habitat research activities and to use in developing mutually beneficial partnerships with state and other federal habitat management entities. However, the agency has funded habitat research, and during the 1995 fiscal year the NMFS budget for habitat research was $7.9 million (FY 1995 Appropriations); funding requested for FY 1996 was $8.4 million (FY 1996 Conference Report level) and funding requested for FY 1997 is $11,9 million (President's FY 1997 budget request). The habitat research projects being carried out have and continue to address management information needs and researchers have received national and international recognition. A goal of the NMFS, in addition to forming increased partnerships with federal and state agencies and academia, is to at least double the habitat research funding requested for FY 1997 over the next 5 years.
The HRP described herein is now being used to form underpinnings to organize ongoing and future habitat research within the agency, to identify research gaps relative to management needs, and as a basis for organizing budget funding initiatives and partnerships to address habitat issues. These issues are increasing, not decreasing, as the coasts continue to develop, and habitat issues are receiving national attention from the press, the recreational and commercial fishing communities and the general public. By the end of 1996 the ongoing and newly proposed habitat research within the agency will be collated by the NMFS Habitat Conservation Office among the five focal areas of the HRP. As we point out above, aspects of the research plan already are underway and a synthesis will be available this calendar year. Specific new research activities and directions will be stages as new funding initiatives occur, but a goal is to have integrated programs within and across the focal areas. As noted by Waste (1996:29) for the NMFS National Habitat Program of which this Habitat Research Plan is a Part: "...many factors beyond the control of NMFS will influence program implementation: budget constraints, personnel limitations, and redirections in policy by the Clinton administration or Congress. Nevertheless, the new NMFS National Habitat Program [and likewise this Habitat Research Plan] is striving to focus staff, budget, and priorities to make the greatest positive difference in sustaining living marine resources and their habitats." A holistic and integrated research effort is critical to this achievement, and will produce information that can be used to address a variety of needs to fisheries, protected resources, and habitat issues.
REFERENCES
Brouha, P. 1993. Emulating Canada: recognizing existing aquatic and fish habitat areas as invaluable. Fisheries 18(10):4.
Burns, D.C. 1991. Cumulative effects of small modifications to habitat. Fisheries 16(1):12-17.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1990. Lack of theoretical basis for predicting rate and pathways of recovery. Environmental Management 14:517-526.
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. 1991. Wetlands status and trends in the coterminous United States, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the coterminous United States: 1950's to 1970's. Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Hoss, D.E., and G.W. Thayer. 1993. The importance of habitat to the early life history of estuarine dependent fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium 14: 147-158.
Kusler, J., and M. Kentula, eds. 1989. Wetland creation and restoration: The status of the science. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/3-89/038a,b. Washington, DC.
NMFS, 1994. Habitat protection activity: 1991-1993. Office of Habitat Protection, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 1995. A strategic plan to strengthen the National Marine Fisheries Service's National Habitat Program. Office of Habitat Protection, Silver Spring, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1995. NOAA Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2005. Executive Summary, September 1995. Washington, DC.
Pickett, S.T.A., and M.L. Cadenasso. 1995. Landscape Ecology: Spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269:331-334.
Root, T.L., and S.H. Schneider. 1995. Ecology and climate: Research strategies and implications. Science 269:334-341.
Sargent, S.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.A. Druer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's seagrasses: Assessment and management options. FMRI Tech. Rep. TR-1. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL.
Thayer, G.W., ed. 1992. Restoring the nation's marine environment. Maryland Sea Grant Book, College Park, MD.
Thomas, J.P. 1995. Remote sensing and relating coastal development to living marine resources and their habitats. Natural Areas J. 15:21-36.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1991. Recent changes in estuarine wetlands of the coterminous United States. Pages 100-109 in Coastal Wetlands, Coastal Zone '91 Conference-ASCE Proceedings. Long Beach, CA, July 1991, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1991. Population trends and congressional apportionment. Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994. Fisheries Statistics of the United States, 1993. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9300. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Waste, S.M. 1996. The NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation: Protecting the habitats of living marine resources. Fisheries 21(2): 24-29.