HABITAT HOTLINE
SPECIAL ISSUE
FEBRUARY 1997 NUMBER 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EDITORS NOTE: One of the accomplishments of
the 104th Congress was the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Act). The Act contains
new and stronger fish habitat protection language. Currently, the National
Marine Fisheries Service is soliciting comments on the proposed "Framework
for the Description, Identification, Conservation, and Enhancement of Essential
Fish Habitat." This framework document is reproduced in its entirety
here to encourage your review and comments (see page 4). We have also included
an "Updates" section in the back of this issue to inform you
of other fish habitat news.
COMMENTS
ON NMFS ESSENTIAL HABITAT FRAMEWORK DUE FEBRUARY 12
BACKGROUND: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act) was originally passed in 1976. The Act gave the federal government jurisdiction to regulate fishing activities offshore of the United States from three miles out to 200 miles (exception: the states of Texas and Florida have jurisdiction from zero to nine miles.) This federally managed area is referred to as the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The main purposes of the Act were to "Americanize" the fishery (i.e., to replace foreign fishing vessels with American vessels) and to prevent overfishing. The Act also established the eight regional fishery management councils (Councils). The Councils are charged with managing the harvest of fish and shellfish in the EEZ, which is accomplished, in part, through Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (whose member states are Idaho, California, Oregon, and Washington) has three FMPs: salmon, groundfish (e.g. rockfish, sablefish, and whiting) and northern anchovy.
[map here of West Coast]
Source: Pacific Fishery Management Council
While managing the harvest of marine resources is important
to maintain a sustainable resource and fishing industry, the writers of
the Act recognized the importance of habitat to productive fisheries. However,
the regional fishery management councils have no direct authority under
which to regulate actions that threaten essential fish habitat (e.g. wetlands
destruction, dredge material disposal, etc.). The National Marine Fisheries
Service has consultation authority over actions affecting fish habitat.
Most of NMFS' "clout" comes from the habitat related authority
pertaining to the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Power Act, the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Clean Water Act. However, a stronger
habitat mandate under the Act was much needed.
Therefore, an issue pursued during the reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was to strengthen the habitat language to give
the regional fishery management councils and Secretary of Commerce (NMFS)
a more effective means of influencing decisions that would impact fish
habitat.
While the Act did expand the habitat duties of
the Councils and NMFS (see below), language giving them habitat related
regulatory authority or veto power over actions that would harm habitat
was not included in final Act language. The good news is that the
identification and description of essential fish habitat, as proposed,
will allow fishermen and others to more effectively protect important areas
from degradation.
The new habitat requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are a step forward for habitat protection. However, the fishing industry,
fishing groups, and conservation organizations must continue to stress
the importance of healthy fish habitat to resource agencies and lawmakers
at the federal and state levels, as well as to the general public.
To effectively implement the Act's new habitat mandates,
it will be extremely crucial that additional Congressional funding be provided
to the fishery management councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process
of implementing the requirements of Magnuson-Stevens Act. On January
3, 1997, NMFS issued an "Advance notice of proposed rulemaking;
notice of availability; request for comments" for its Framework
for the Description, Identification, Conservation, and Enhancement of Essential
Fish Habitat (Framework). A copy of the Framework in its entirety can
be found on pages 4 through 18.
Comments on the Framework are due February 12,
1997. The National Marine Fisheries Service will then issue a proposed
rule in early March 1997.
By April 11, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries
Service is required to establish guidelines, by regulation, to assist the
Councils in describing and identifying Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) (including
adverse affects to EFH) and conservation and enhancement measures.
This regulation is important because it will guide
habitat actions of NMFS and the Councils for years to come.
Below are sections of the Framework for which NMFS is particularly interested in receiving comments and information. The "go to" page number indicates where the applicable information can be found in this issue of the Habitat Hotline.
Some other topics of interest in the Framework include:
Comments Should Be Sent To:
The Director, Office of Habitat Conservation
Attention: EFH
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Comments can also be faxed to: (301) 713-1043
*** Comments must be received by ***
February 12, 1997.
For Further Information Contact: Lee R. Crockett,
National Marine Fisheries Service at (301) 713-2325.
February 6, 1997, from 7-10 pm, Room 221, Fishery Industrial
Technology Center, 900 Trident Way, Kodiak, Alaska.
February 7, 1997, from 7-10 pm, Aleutian Room, Anchorage
Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska.
For an Electronic Copy of the Framework, via the
Internet, go to the following addresses:
http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/rschreib/html/guidev5c.htm
and
http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/rschreib/html/anpr2.htm
or
See this issue of the Habitat Hotline on PSMFC's
Homepage (click on "publications") at the following address:
http://www.psmfc.org/
Framework for the Description, Identification, Conservation,
and Enhancement of Essential Fish Habitat
I. PURPOSE
Section 305(b)(1)(A and B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.), as amended, mandates that,
(A) The Secretary shall, within 6 months of the date of
enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, establish by regulation guidelines
to assist the Councils in the description and identification of essential
fish habitat in fishery management plans (including adverse impacts on
such habitat) and in the consideration of actions to ensure the conservation
and enhancement of such habitat. The Secretary shall set forth a schedule
for the amendment of fishery management plans to include the identification
of essential fish habitat and for the review and updating of such identifications
based on new scientific evidence or other relevant information.
(B) The Secretary, in consultation with participants in
the fishery, shall provide each Council with recommendations and information
regarding each fishery under that Council's authority to assist it in the
identification of essential fish habitat, the adverse impacts on that habitat,
and the actions that should be considered to ensure the conservation and
enhancement of that habitat.
This document provides a framework for the description,
identification, conservation, and enhancement of essential fish habitat
(EFH) and is designed to aid Fishery Management Councils (Councils) in
implementing the EFH requirements of sections 303 and 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. This framework also describes how the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), will
implement its EFH requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These requirements
include developing and providing information and recommendations in guidelines,
by regulation, to the Councils to assist in identifying EFH, adverse impacts
to EFH (including adverse impacts from fishing), and actions to conserve
and enhance EFH. Finally, the framework describes how NMFS, in coordination
with the Councils, will consult on and recommend conservation and enhancement
measures for actions undertaken by any state or Federal agency that may
adversely affect any EFH.
This framework is an instrument to solicit public comments
on ideas for the development of guidelines by regulation, as required by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In order to coordinate implementation of the
fishery management plan EFH amendments efficiently, NMFS will contact the
Councils to develop an appropriate schedule (see section V.D). NMFS will
also develop a technical assistance manual that will provide the Councils,
Federal agencies, and states with additional information for identifying
EFH, adverse impacts to EFH, and conservation and enhancement measures.
II. INTRODUCTION
The health and productivity of fish populations are dependent
on habitat quantity and quality. As defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, fish includes finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms
of marine animal and plant life, other than marine mammals and birds. Congress
stated that habitat considerations should receive increased attention for
the conservation and management of fishery resources (section 2(a)(9)).
This framework describes how NMFS interprets the statutory definition of
EFH and outlines procedures to assist Councils in describing, identifying,
conserving, and enhancing EFH.
This framework is based on four general principles. First,
the description and identification of EFH must be based on the best scientific
information available. Second, in cases where little information is available,
the framework requires a conservative approach to describing and identifying
EFH, erring on the side of inclusiveness, to ensure adequate habitat protection.
Third, the framework must be appropriate for many different species in
many different areas. Finally, the procedures for describing and identifying
EFH should be scientifically defensible.
III. OVERVIEW OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
A. Definition of EFH
As defined in section 3(10) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
EFH is "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the purposes of this
framework document: "waters" include aquatic areas and their
associated physical, chemical and biological properties that are used by
fish and may include historic areas where appropriate; "substrate"
includes sediments, geological features underlying the waters, and associated
biological communities such as coral reefs or submerged aquatic vegetation;
"necessary" means the habitat required to support a managed species
or assemblage at a target production level reflecting conscientious stewardship;
and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers
a species' full life cycle. Migratory routes such as rivers serving as
passageways to anadromous fish spawning grounds should be considered EFH.
The definition of EFH may include habitat for an individual species or
an assemblage of species, whichever is appropriate within each FMP. Finally,
in interpreting "feeding" and "growth to maturity",
EFH should also include essential habitat for prey species if the managed
species depends on the existence of a specific prey species. This definition
commits the Secretary and Councils to an ecosystem approach to fish habitat
conservation and enhancement that views EFH from a broad perspective.
B. Contents of FMPs
The amended Magnuson-Stevens Act has several new FMP provisions,
including section 303(a)(7) which requires: that EFH be described and identified
for any fishery that is managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act based on
guidelines established by the Secretary of Commerce under section 305(b)(1)(A);
that the adverse effects of fishing on EFH be minimized, to the extent
practicable; and that other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement
of EFH be identified.
C. Actions by the Secretary
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary to undertake several actions regarding fish habitat:
D. Actions by the Fishery Management Councils
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires or authorizes actions
by the Councils, including:
E. Actions Required of Other Federal Agencies
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires actions by Federal agencies,
including:
IV. SPECIFIC EFH REQUIREMENTS IN FMPS
A. Description and Identification of EFH
1. Fish Habitat (Present and Historical)
The role of habitat in supporting the productivity of
organisms has been thoroughly documented in the ecological literature,
and the linkage between habitat availability and fishery productivity has
been clearly established for several fishery species. Because habitat is
an essential element for sustaining the production of a species, the goals
of FMPs cannot be achieved if the managed species do not have a sufficient
quantity of suitable habitat.
From the broadest perspective, fish habitat is the geographic area where the species occurs at any time during its life. That area should be described in terms of ecological characteristics, location, and time. Ecologically, essential habitat includes structure or substrate that focus distribution (e.g., coral reefs, marshes, or kelp beds) and other characteristics that are less distinct (e.g., turbidity zones, thermoclines, or fronts separating water masses). Spatially, habitat use may shift over time due to climatic change, human uses, or other factors. Habitat not currently used should be considered when establishing long-term goals for EFH and species productivity. Habitat restoration will be vital to improving habitat quality and quantity, with benefits to the species and society.
Fishery species use habitat for spawning, breeding, migration,
feeding and growth, and for shelter to increase survival. However, most
habitats provide only a subset of these functions. Fish habitat utilized
by a species can change with life history stage, abundance of the species,
competition from other species, and environmental variability in time and
space. The type of habitat available, its attributes, and its functions
are important to species productivity and societal benefits.
2. EFH for Managed Species
There are numerous factors that must be considered by
the Secretary and the appropriate Council for determining the EFH of a
managed species. Institutional arrangements for implementing the Magnuson-Stevens
Act currently utilize either a single species or single assemblage approach.
The ecological relationships among species and between the species and
their habitat require, where possible, that an ecosystem approach be used
in assessing EFH of a managed species or species assemblage. Where possible,
this ecosystem approach should be used in assessing the EFH of a given
species or assemblage. The extent of the EFH should be based on the judgment
of the Secretary and the appropriate Council regarding the amount of habitat
that is necessary to maintain a managed species at a target production
level that supports the maximum societal benefits of the species, including
the catch of the species.
In general, the minimum threshold for determining the
target production of the species or assemblage should be that level necessary
to maintain at least the current reproductive capacity of the population
so that the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) eventually can be attained.
Since the MSY is based on prevailing ecological and environmental conditions,
including degraded conditions that may have contributed to a reduction
in MSY, the feasibility of increasing the yield of a species with improved
ecological conditions must be evaluated. This feasibility should be determined
by assessing historical information that existed in periods of higher yields
and more favorable ecological conditions, and considering the feasibility
of returning to those conditions. If degraded or inaccessible habitat has
contributed to the reduced yields of a species, and in the judgment of
the Secretary and the appropriate Council, the degraded conditions can
be reversed through such actions as improved fish passage techniques (for
fish blockages), improved water quality measures (removal of contaminants)
and similar measures that are practicable, then EFH should include those
habitats that would be essential to the species to obtain increased yields
or societal benefits. EFH is to be determined based on the target production
level that supports the maximum societal benefit of a species, including
harvest, and will always be greater than the "critical habitat"
for any managed species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act.
Other societal benefits of the species, such as being
a prey species of other living marine species, should be considered when
determining the target production level of a species and the required habitat
to support that level of productivity. Where a stock of a species is considered
to be healthy and where sufficient information exists to determine the
necessary habitat to support the target production level, then EFH for
a species should be a subset of all existing habitat for the species.
EFH should include geographic boundaries in order to provide
notice to Federal and state agencies and other affected parties of the
potential effects of their activities on EFH. It should be described by
the components of the ecosystem that are important to the managed species.
Therefore, EFH should be described by its physical, chemical, and/or biological
characteristics, including, but not limited to, temperature, salinity,
nutrients, dissolved oxygen, bottom type, and vegetation. EFH should also
take into consideration that environmental conditions affecting one life
history stage could impact the overall production and recruitment success
of a species. Some habitats may be essential because they support specific
prey organisms required to maintain the productivity of the managed species.
If the abundance of a species is directly reliant upon the abundance of
specific prey organisms, then the description of EFH for the species should
include a description of the essential habitat for the prey as well.
FMPs should describe EFH in text and with tables that
provide information on the biological requirements for each life history
stage of the species. These tables should include all available information
on environmental and habitat variables that control or limit distribution,
abundance, reproduction, growth, mortality, and productivity of the managed
species. Information in the tables should be supported with citations.
Graphical depiction of habitats used by life history stages, and maps of
species distributions may also be useful in describing and identifying
EFH.
3. Information Requirements
The following hierarchical approach should be used in
identifying EFH; the process should be initiated at Level 1 and progress
through the various levels as more information on habitat functions becomes
available. Information from all levels will be useful in identifying EFH,
and the goal of this procedure should be to include as many levels of analysis
as possible within the constraints of the available data. The hierarchical
approach presented herein for describing and identifying EFH relies upon
the best available scientific information regarding species distribution,
abundance, habitat usage, and habitat function. Where the best available
scientific information is subject to differing interpretations, or is limited
in scope, best scientific professional judgement should be used. Councils
should apply this approach in a risk-averse fashion, erring on the side
of inclusiveness to ensure adequate protection for EFH of managed species.
Councils should strive to obtain data sufficient to describe habitat at
the highest level of detail (i.e., Level 4) and provide the regulated community
(i.e., those individuals proposing activities that may adversely effect
EFH) with an unambiguous interpretation of the description and identification
EFH. The hierarchical approach provides a framework for identifying research
needs and collecting additional information to improve our understanding
of EFH.
The information obtained in the hierarchical analysis
will allow Councils to assess the relative value of habitats in relation
to the productivity of a fish species. Habitats valued most highly through
this analysis should be considered essential for the species. Habitats
of intermediate and low value, however, may also be essential. For example,
low-value habitat may be extensive in its geographic coverage, and the
productivity derived from the cumulative habitat area may be essential
in meeting target productions levels. Similarly, if a species is recovering
from a population decline, all habitats used by the species should be considered
essential in addition to some historic habitats that are potentially valuable.
To identify EFH, basic information is needed on current
and historic stock size and on the geographic range of the managed species
(and prey species where appropriate). Information is also required on the
timing and location of major life history stages (defined by developmental
and functional shifts). Since EFH should be identified for each major life
history stage, data should be collected on the distribution, density, growth,
mortality, and production of each stage within all habitats occupied by
the species. Different levels of data may be available for different life
history stages of a species (e.g., data for eggs may be at Level 1, while
data for adults may be at Level 3). These data should be obtained from
the peer-reviewed literature, data reports and "gray" literature,
data files of government resource agencies, and any other potential source
of quality information.
Level 1: Presence/absence distribution data are available
in at least some portions of the geographic range of the species
This level is used when only presence/absence data are
available to describe the distribution of a species (or life history stage)
in relation to potential habitats. Care should be taken to ensure that
all potential habitats have been sampled adequately. Using these data,
the only scientifically defensible statement that can be made about the
importance of a habitat is that the species (or life history stage) does
or does not occur in the habitat. At this level of data availability, EFH
is everywhere a species has been found.
In the event that distribution data are available for
only portions of the geographic area occupied by a particular life history
stage of a species, EFH can be inferred on the basis of distributions among
habitats where the species has been found and on information about its
habitat requirements and behavior. At this level of data availability,
the risk-averse approach is to define EFH as everywhere the species is
likely to occur, noting any areas of known significance to reproduction,
feeding, or growth to maturity.
Level 2: Habitat-related densities of the species are
available
At this level, quantitative data (i.e., relative densities)
are available for the habitats occupied by a species or life history stage.
Because the efficiency of sampling gear is often affected by habitat characteristics,
strict quality assurance criteria are required to ensure that density estimates
are comparable among habitats. For example, trawl data may not be appropriate
for making comparisons of fish densities among different estuarine habitats,
because trawl catch efficiency has been shown to vary with some habitat
characteristics. Density data should reflect habitat utilization, and the
degree that a habitat is utilized is assumed to be indicative of habitat
value. Therefore, for each life history stage, the habitats contributing
the most productivity are those with the highest densities of the species.
When assessing habitat value on the basis of fish densities in this manner,
temporal changes in habitat availability and utilizations should be considered.
Level 3: Habitat-related growth, reproduction, or survival rates by habitat are available
At this level, data are available on habitat-related growth,
reproduction, and/or survival by life history stage. The habitats contributing
the most to productivity should be those that support the highest growth,
reproduction, and survival of the species (or life history stage).
Level 4: Production rates by habitat are available
At this level, data are available that directly relate
the production rates of a species or life history stage to habitat type,
quantity, quality, and location. Essential habitats are those necessary
to maintain target long-term production levels.
4. Representation of EFH
Once EFH is identified for each life history stage, the
general distribution and geographic limits of EFH should be presented in
FMPs in the form of maps. Ultimately, these data should be incorporated
into a Geographic Information System (GIS) to facilitate analysis and presentation.
For example, if submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has been identified
as EFH for a species, the general distribution of SAV should be mapped
over the geographic range of the species. These maps may be presented as
fixed in time and space, but they should encompass all appropriate temporal
and spatial variability in the distribution of EFH. If the geographic boundaries
of EFH change seasonally, annually, or decadally, these changing distributions
need to be represented in the maps. Different types of EFH should be identified
on maps along with areas used by different life history stages of the species.
The type of information used to identify EFH should be included in map
legends, and more detailed and informative maps should be produced as more
complete information about population responses (e.g., growth, survival,
or reproductive rates) to habitat characteristics becomes available. Where
the present distribution or stock size of a species or life history stage
is different from the historical distribution or stock size, then maps
of historical habitat boundaries should be included in the FMP. If EFH
for a species includes habitat that supports a specific prey organism,
this prey habitat should be identified separately and presented on the
habitat maps as well.
B. Adverse Effects of Human Activities, and Actions to
Ensure the Conservation, Management, and Enhancement of EFH
This section provides guidance concerning the identification
in FMPs of potential adverse effects of Federal and state activities on
EFH, as well as conservation, management and enhancement opportunities
associated with such activities. Potential adverse effects of fishing activities
on EFH are also addressed in this section.
Consideration of EFH should be incorporated into amended
FMPs such that the FMPs identify and describe the following: (1) activities
with known or potential adverse effects on EFH (threats); (2) actions required
to counter threats to the existing and historic EFH; and (3) actions to
restore or enhance EFH. In this context, "restore" means to reestablish
the habitat and associated functions to a desired level that is based on
feasibility and historic information; and "enhance" means to
improve the habitat and associated functions to a desired level that is
based on feasibility and historic information. FMP recommendations should
assess impacts cumulatively and individually for all activities that adversely
affect EFH. The ultimate goal is to incorporate the highest level of analysis
possible, e.g., cumulative impacts on a watershed basis, including some
form of ecological risk assessment. The steps involved in identifying and
describing adverse effects on EFH, and a suggested process to avoid them,
should be presented in a hierarchical fashion.
Tier 1: Identify activities that have potential adverse
effects on EFH. Broad categories of activities may include, but are not
limited to: fill, excavation, mining, impoundment, discharge, water diversions,
thermal additions, runoff, placement of contaminated material, introduction
of exotic species, certain fishing activities, and the conversion of aquatic
habitat that may eliminate, diminish, or disrupt the functions of EFH.
If known, describe the EFH most likely to be affected by these activities.
For each activity, describe the known or potential impacts to EFH. These
descriptions should explain the mechanisms or processes that cause expected
deleterious effects, and explain the known or potential impacts on the
habitat function (e.g., carcinogenic effects, bioaccumulation, clogged
gills, reduced visibility for prey capture, etc.). When there are sufficient
data to support it, the use of a GIS is encouraged.
Tier 2: Using Tier 1 as a basis, identify and describe
those activities that can influence habitat function on an ecosystem or
watershed scale. This should include an assessment of the cumulative and
synergistic effects of multiple threats, including natural adverse effects
(such as storm damage or climate-based environmental shifts), and an ecological
risk assessment of the managed species' habitat. For the purposes of this
analysis, cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result
from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes
such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. The
use of a GIS to analyze and present these data is required under this tier.
For the identification and description of adverse effects
on EFH, FMPs should provide scientific justification that the potential
or known adverse effects are a result of the identified activities. Examples
of scientific justification include, but are not limited to: peer-reviewed
articles and reports; resource agency publications that have been subjected
to internal agency review; agency data products, such as research findings,
on-going evaluations and scientific knowledge of species, ecosystems, or
watershed systems; ocean temperature, dissolved oxygen and salinity logs;
fish landings reports; satellite and aerial imagery data products; and
testimonies of individuals with a demonstrated expertise regarding the
resources under discussion.
1. Fishing-Related Activities
Adverse impacts from fishing may include physical disturbance
of the substrate, loss of and injury to benthic organisms, and loss of
and injury to prey species and their habitat. Benthic organisms are a particular
concern because they may also create important microhabitat features of
EFH that directly affect survival and feeding success of early life history
stages of the managed species. FMPs must include management options that
minimize adverse impacts, to the extent practicable, and identify potential
conservation and enhancement measures. Because fishing activities fall
within the regulatory control of the Councils and the Secretary, it is
incumbent upon NMFS and the Councils to gather sufficient information to
support evaluation of these options. Fishery management options may include,
but are not limited to:
(i) Fishing gear restrictions. These options may include, but are not limited to: limit seasonal and areal uses of trawl gear and bottom longlines; restrict net mesh sizes, traps, and entanglement gear to allow escapement of juveniles and non-target species; reduce fish and shellfish traps set near coral reefs and other hard bottoms; limit seasonal and areal uses of dredge gear in sensitive habitats; prohibit use of explosives and chemicals; restrict diving activities that have potential adverse effects; prohibit the use of nets that have a high rate of incidental take or bycatch; prohibit drift gillnets; prohibit anchoring of fishing vessels in coral reef areas and other significant areas; and prohibit fishing activities that cause significant physical damage in areas of EFH, such as SAV, algal beds, rock reefs, and sand dollar beds.
(ii) Closed areas/times. These spatial and temporal actions may include, but are not limited to: closing areas to all fishing or specific gear types during spawning, migration, foraging and nursery activities; and designating zones to limit effects of fishing practices on certain vulnerable or rare areas/species/life history stages, e.g. Special Management Zones, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, Areas of Biological Significance, and Species of Concern.
(iii) Harvest limits. These actions may include, but are
not limited to: limits on take of species that provide structural habitat
for other species assemblages or communities, e.g., "live rock,"
SAV including eelgrass, kelp beds (e.g., "roe-on-kelp" fishery),
and other marine habitats.
2. Non-Fishing Related Activities
A variety of activities within watersheds and in offshore
and coastal areas affect fish habitat. These activities affect living marine
resources directly and indirectly through habitat loss and/or modification.
These effects, combined with cumulative effects from activities in adjacent
areas, have contributed to the decline of some species.
FMPs should include options that minimize these effects
and identify potential enhancement measures. Conservation and enhancement
recommendations may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts on EFH.
Environmentally sound engineering and management practices (e.g., seasonal
restrictions, dredging methods, disposal options, etc.) should be employed
for all dredging and construction projects. Disposal of contaminated dredge
material, sewage sludge, industrial waste or other materials in EFH should
be avoided. Oil and gas exploration, production, transportation, and refining
activities in EFH should be avoided, where possible, and minimize and mitigate
if unavoidable.
(ii) Restoration of riparian and shallow coastal areas.
Restoration measures could include: restoration of functions of riparian
vegetation by reestablishing mature trees or other appropriate vegetation,
restore natural bottom characteristics; removal of material from areas
where accumulation is caused by human activities; and replacement of gravel
to stream areas for spawning.
(iii) Upland habitat restoration. This should include
measures to control erosion, stabilize roads, upgrade culverts for fish
passage, and manage watershed uses.
(iv) Water quality. This includes enforcement of best
land management practices for ensuring water quality standards at state
and Federal levels, improved treatment of sewage, and disposal of waste
materials .
(v) Watershed analysis and subsequent watershed planning.
This should be encouraged at the local and state levels. This effort should
minimize depletion/diversion of freshwater flows into rivers and estuaries,
destruction/degradation of wetlands, and introduction of non-native species,
and should consider climate changes.
C. Recommendations for Improving Habitat Information
Each FMP should contain recommendations, preferably in
priority order, for research efforts that the Councils and NMFS view as
necessary for carrying out their EFH management mandate. The primary need
for additional research is to make available sufficient information to
support a higher level of description and identification of EFH (Section
IV.A.3). An initial inventory of available environmental and fisheries
data sources relevant to the managed species should be useful in describing
and identifying EFH. This inventory should also help to identify major
species-specific habitat data gaps. Gaps in data availability (i.e., accessibility,
use and application of the data) and in data quality (including considerations
of scale and resolution; relevance; and potential biases in collection
and interpretation) should be identified. The recommendations may include
basic life history information that will result in the comprehensive identification
of the habitat requirements of the species (or species assemblages), including
all life stages, as well as habitat-related information that defines the
interrelationship between the species, its environment and the food chain
(e.g., drifter studies to determine current flows, and tagging studies
for determination of migratory pathways and habitat-use patterns).
Additional research may also be necessary to identify
and evaluate actual and potential adverse effects on EFH, including, but
not limited to: direct physical alteration; impaired habitat quality/functions;
or indirect adverse effects such as sea level rise; global warming and
climate shifts; and non-gear fishery impacts. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
specifically identifies the effects of fishing as a concern. The need for
additional research on the effects of fishing gear on EFH may be included
in this section of the FMP. If an adverse effect is identified and determined
to be an impediment to reaching target long-term production levels, then
the research needed to quantify and mitigate this effect should be identified
in this section.
A target production level and the habitat necessary to
support this level of productivity should be defined in the EFH amendment
process, against which success can be measured. This should represent a
measure of the habitat necessary to restore levels of species productivity
to feasible historic levels, taking into account accepted productivity
levels and any adverse effects that have already reduced available EFH.
V. DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF EFH FMP AMENDMENTS
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to:
A. Evaluation of FMPs
Since 1986, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has required that
each FMP describe significant fishery habitat and the effects habitat impacts
may have on the fishery. The initial step in preparing EFH amendments will
be for NMFS and each Council to evaluate the existing habitat information
in each FMP. This review will help establish the amount and quality of
the information on life history, habitat, and distribution for each species
or assemblage of species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This evaluation
should compare existing FMP documentation to the hierarchical approach
outlined in section IV.A.3.
In cooperation with the Councils, and after consulting
with fishery participants, NMFS should identify additional information
to assist the Councils with EFH amendments. Significant data gaps should
also be identified.
B. Development of EFH Identification Recommendations
After reviewing the best available scientific information,
and in consultation with the Councils, participants in the fishery, and
other interested parties, NMFS will develop recommendations for the identification
of EFH in each FMP. Prior to submitting a formal EFH identification recommendation
to the Council for an FMP, the draft recommendation will be made available
for public review and at least one public meeting will be held.
The contents of EFH identification recommendations may
vary depending on the amount of supporting information available for the
species being considered. For EFH, presence/absence data for a species
with "Level 1" information (see Section IV.B.2.i) will support
a simple graphical display, while the more complex data sets expected at
"Level 3" will support more detailed comparison of life history
stages and habitat types to yield displays of distribution over time. For
mitigative measures, the level of detail will be dictated by a combination
of species and impact information. Point source discharges, designated
disposal sites, and known pollutant loads may provide sufficient information
to develop mitigative measures for certain impacts in specific areas, perhaps
even with seasonal restrictions. Such determinations will be made by NMFS
and the Councils based on the available information for each species or
species assemblage.
C. Preparation of EFH Amendments
NMFS will consider the best available scientific information
in developing EFH amendments for Council consideration. Councils have the
option of incorporating some or all of the NMFS recommendations into their
EFH amendments, consistent with this framework.
D. Schedule for EFH Amendments
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS develop a
schedule for amending FMPs. NMFS will develop the amendment schedule based
on discussions with each Council, thereby balancing pressures from other
priorities and staff availability. NMFS will use the schedule to anticipate
when its contributions will be needed by each Council. Several factors
are likely to affect EFH amendment schedules:
To arrange workloads during the 18-month amendment period,
each Council should notify NMFS of its intended EFH amendment schedule
within 1 month of publication of final guidelines in the Federal Register.
NMFS will combine those schedules into a master list of all proposed EFH
amendments and make the schedule available to the public. Further discussion
may be needed to balance amendment schedules with resource availability.
E. Future Review of EFH
Each Council and NMFS are expected to review the EFH components
of FMPs. Each FMP EFH identification recommendation and amendment should
include a provision to review and update EFH information and prepare a
revised FMP amendment if new information becomes available. The schedule
for this review should be based on an assessment of the quality of both
the existing data and expectations when new data will be available. Such
a review of information should be conducted at least once every five years.
VI. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION ON EFH
A. GENERAL
1. Scope
The following guidance addresses the coordination and
consultation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These include the
requirement that: Federal agencies must consult with the Secretary on all
activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by
the agency, that may adversely affect EFH; and the Secretary and the Councils
provide recommendations to conserve EFH to Federal or state agencies on
such activities. EFH conservation recommendations are measures recommended
by the Councils or NMFS to a Federal or state agency to conserve EFH. Such
recommendations may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise
offset adverse effects on EFH resulting from actions or proposed actions
authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency. These actions are mandated
by sections 305(b)(2-4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These requirements
are also explained within sections III(D-E) of this framework. The following
guidance for a coordination and consultative process should assist all
parties involved to clearly and consistently interpret and implement the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
2. Coordination with Other Environmental Reviews
Consultation and coordination under sections 305(b)(1)(D),
305(b)(2), and 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act may be consolidated
with interagency coordination procedures required by other statutes, such
as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Power Act, to reduce duplication
and improve efficiency. For example, a Federal agency preparing an environmental
impact statement (EIS) need not duplicate sections of that document in
a separate EFH assessment, provided the EIS specifically and fully evaluates
the effects of the proposed action on EFH, notes that it is intended to
function as an EFH assessment, is provided to NMFS for review, and meets
the other requirements for an EFH assessment contained in this section.
3. Designation of Lead Agency
If more than one Federal or state agency is involved in
an action (e.g., authorization is needed from more than one agency), the
consultation requirements of sections 305(b)(2-4) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act may be fulfilled through a lead agency. The lead agency shall notify
NMFS in writing that it is representing one or more additional agencies.
4. Conservation and Enhancement of EFH
To further the conservation and enhancement of EFH in
accordance with section 305(b)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS
will compile and make available to other Federal and state agencies syntheses
of the locations of EFH, including maps and/or narrative descriptions.
Federal and state agencies empowered to authorize, fund, or undertake actions
that could adversely affect any EFH identified in an FMP are encouraged
to contact NMFS and the Councils to become familiar with the extent of,
and potential threats to EFH, as well as opportunities to promote the conservation
and enhancement of such habitat.
B. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO FEDERAL AND
STATE AGENCIES
1. Establishment of Procedures
Each Council should establish procedures for reviewing
activities authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized,
funded, or undertaken, by state or Federal agencies that may affect the
habitat, including EFH, of a species under its authority. Each Council
may identify activities of concern by: directing Council advisory staff
to track proposed actions; having the Council's habitat committee identify
activities of concern; entering into an agreement with the NMFS Regional
Administrator to notify the Council of activities that may be a concern;
or by similar procedures. Federal and state actions often follow specific
timetables which may not coincide with Council meetings. Councils may wish
to consider establishing abbreviated procedures for the development of
Council recommendations.
2. Early Involvement
Councils should provide comments and recommendations on
proposed state and Federal activities of interest as early as practicable
in project planning to ensure thorough consideration of Council concerns
by the responsible agency.
3. Coordination with NMFS
The Secretary will develop agreements with each Council
to facilitate coordination between the Councils and NMFS on EFH conservation
recommendations.
C. FEDERAL AGENCY CONSULTATION
1. Interagency Coordination
Both Federal and state agencies are encouraged to coordinate
their actions with NMFS to facilitate the early identification of potential
adverse effects on EFH. However, the consultative requirements of sections
305(b)(2) and 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act differ for Federal
agencies versus state agencies. Federal agencies have a statutory requirement
to consult with NMFS regarding actions that may adversely affect EFH, pursuant
to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is mandated under
section 305(b)(4) to provide EFH recommendations regarding state and Federal
agency actions that could adversely affect EFH (see section D). In order
for NMFS to fulfill its obligation regarding EFH recommendations to states,
a process to facilitate EFH recommendations on state activities should
be developed. Both Federal and state agencies are encouraged to develop
specific agreements (or modify existing agreements) with NMFS to meet these
requirements in a manner to increase the efficiency of the consulting requirements
and to fully meet the intent and purpose of the Magnuson-Stevens Act EFH
provisions.
2. Designation of Non-Federal Representative
A Federal agency may designate a non-Federal representative
to conduct an abbreviated consultation or prepare an EFH assessment by
giving written notice of such designation to NMFS. If a non-Federal representative
is used, the Federal agency shall provide guidance and supervision and
shall independently review the scope and contents of the EFH assessment.
The Federal agency remains ultimately responsible for compliance with sections
305(b)(2) and 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
3. General Concurrence
(a) Purpose. The General Concurrence process identifies
specific types of Federal actions that may affect EFH, but for which no
further consultation is generally required because NMFS determines, through
an analysis of that class of action, that they are likely to result in
minimal adverse effects individually or cumulatively. General Concurrences
may be national or regional in scope.
(b) Requirements.
(1) For Federal actions to qualify for General Concurrence,
NMFS must determine, after consultation with the appropriate Council(s),
that the actions meet the following criteria:
(i) the actions must be similar in nature and similar
in their impact on EFH;
(ii) the actions must not cause greater than minimal adverse
effects on EFH when implemented individually; and
(iii) the actions must not cause greater than minimal
cumulative adverse effects on EFH.
(2) Categories of Federal actions may also qualify for
General Concurrence if they are modified by appropriate conditions that
ensure the actions will meet the criteria in paragraph 3(b)(1) above. For
example, NMFS may provide General Concurrence for additional actions contingent
upon project size limitations, seasonal restrictions, or other conditions.
(c) General Concurrence Initiated by Federal Agency. A
Federal agency may request General Concurrence by providing NMFS with a
written description of the nature and approximate number of the proposed
actions, an analysis of the effects of the actions on EFH and associated
species and their life history stages, including cumulative effects, and
the Federal agency's conclusions regarding the magnitude of such effects.
If NMFS agrees that the actions are likely to result in minimal adverse
effects to EFH, NMFS, in consultation with the Council(s), will provide
the Federal agency with a written statement of General Concurrence that
further consultation is not required, and that preparation of EFH assessments
for individual actions subject to the General Concurrence is not necessary.
If NMFS determines that the actions would adversely affect EFH, NMFS will
notify the Federal agency that abbreviated or expanded consultation is
required.
(d) Notification and Further Consultation. NMFS may request
notification for activities covered under a General Concurrence if NMFS
concludes there are circumstances under which such activities could result
in more than a minimal impact on EFH. NMFS may require further consultation
for these activities on a case-by-case basis. Each General Concurrence
should establish specific procedures for notification that further consultation
is possible.
(e) Revisions to General Concurrences. NMFS will periodically
review and revise its findings of General Concurrence as appropriate.
4. EFH Assessments
(a) Preparation requirement. Federal agencies (or designated
non-Federal representatives) must complete an EFH assessment for any action
that may adversely affect EFH identified in a FMP, except for those activities
covered by a finding of General Concurrence.
(b) Mandatory Contents. At a minimum, the assessment shall
contain:
(i) a description of the proposed action;
(ii) an analysis of the effects of the action on EFH and the managed and associated species and their life history stages, including cumulative effects; and
(iii) the Federal agency's conclusions regarding the effects
of the action on EFH.
(c) Additional Information. If warranted by the nature
of the action, the assessment should also include:
(i) the results of an on-site inspection to evaluate the habitat and the site-specific effects of the project;
(ii) the views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected;
(iii) a review of pertinent literature and related information;
(iv) an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action, including alternatives that could avoid or minimize adverse effects on EFH;
(v) proposed mitigation; and/or
(vi) other relevant information.
(d) Incorporation by reference. The assessment may incorporate
by reference a completed EFH assessment prepared for a previous action,
supplemented with any relevant new information, provided the proposed action
involves similar impacts to EFH in the same geographic area or a similar
ecological setting. It may also incorporate by reference other environmental
assessment documents. These documents must be provided to NMFS.
5. Abbreviated Consultation Procedures
(a) Purpose. Abbreviated consultation allows NMFS to quickly
determine whether, and to what degree, a Federal agency action may adversely
affect EFH. The abbreviated consultation process is appropriate for Federal
actions that would adversely affect EFH when, in NMFS' judgment, the adverse
effect(s) of such actions could be alleviated through minor modifications
to the proposed action.
(b) Notification by agency. The Federal agency shall notify
NMFS and the appropriate Council as early as practicable regarding proposed
actions that may adversely affect EFH. Notification will facilitate discussion
of measures to conserve the habitat. Such early consultation shall normally
occur during pre-application planning for projects subject to a Federal
permit or license, and during preliminary planning for projects to be funded
or undertaken directly by a Federal agency.
(c) Submittal of EFH assessment. The Federal agency shall
submit a completed EFH assessment to NMFS for review. If either the Federal
agency or NMFS believes expanded consultation will be necessary, the Federal
agency shall initiate expanded consultation concurrently with submission
of the EFH assessment.
(d) NMFS response. NMFS shall respond in writing as to
whether it concurs with the findings of the assessment. NMFS' response
shall indicate whether expanded consultation is required. If additional
consultation is not necessary, NMFS' response shall include any appropriate
EFH conservation recommendations to be used by the Federal agency. NMFS
will send a copy of its response to the appropriate Council.
(e) Timing. Wherever possible, the Federal agency shall
submit its EFH assessment to NMFS at least 60 days prior to final approval
of the action, and NMFS shall respond in writing within 30 days. NMFS and
Federal agencies may agree to use a compressed schedule in cases where
regulatory approvals cannot accommodate 30 days for consultation, or to
conduct consultation earlier in the planning cycle for proposed actions
with lengthy approval processes.
6. Expanded Consultation Procedures
(a) Purpose. Expanded consultation is appropriate for
Federal actions that would result in substantial adverse effects to EFH
and/or require more detailed analysis to enable NMFS to develop EFH conservation
recommendations.
(b) Initiation. Expanded consultation begins when NMFS receives a written request from a Federal agency to initiate expanded consultation. The Federal agency's written request must include a completed EFH assessment. Subject to NMFS' approval, any request for expanded consultation may encompass number of similar individual actions within a given geographic area.
(c) NMFS response. NMFS will:
(1) Review the EFH assessment, any additional information
furnished by the Federal agency, and other relevant information;
(2) Conduct a site visit, if necessary and appropriate,
to assess the quality of the habitat and to clarify the impacts of the
Federal agency action;
(3) Evaluate the effects of the action on EFH, including
cumulative effects;
(4) Coordinate its review of the proposed action with
the appropriate Council; and
(5) Formulate EFH conservation recommendations and provide
the recommendations to the Federal agency and the appropriate Council.
(d) Timing. NMFS will conclude expanded consultation within
60 days of its initiation unless extended by agreement between NMFS and
the Federal agency. NMFS and Federal agencies may agree to use a compressed
schedule in cases where regulatory approvals cannot accommodate 60 days
for consultation.
(e) Best scientific information. The Federal agency shall
provide NMFS with the best scientific information available, or reasonably
accessible during the consultation, regarding the effects of the proposed
action on EFH.
7. Responsibilities of Federal Agency Following Receipt
of EFH Conservation Recommendations
(a) Federal agency response. Within 30 days after receiving
an EFH conservation recommendation (or prior to final approval of the action,
if a decision by the Federal agency is required in less than 30 days),
the Federal agency shall provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS
and the appropriate Council. The response shall include a description of
measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting
the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent
with the recommendations of NMFS, the Federal agency shall explain its
reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific
justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects
of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate,
or offset such effects.
(b) Dispute resolution. After receiving a Federal agency
response that is inconsistent with the recommendations of NMFS, the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(or a designee) may request a meeting with the head of the Federal agency,
as well as any other agencies involved, to discuss the proposed action
and opportunities for resolving any disagreements.
8. Resumption of Consultation
A Federal agency must resume consultation with NMFS following
either abbreviated or expanded consultation if the agency substantially
revises its plans for the action or if new information becomes available
that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH recommendations. Additionally, where
Federal oversight, involvement, or control over the action has been retained
or is authorized by law, the Federal agency must resume consultation if
new EFH is designated that may be adversely affected by the agency's exercise
of its authority.
D. NMFS RECOMMENDATIONS TO STATE AGENCIES
1. Establishment of Procedures
Each NMFS Region will establish procedures for identifying
actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by state
agencies that adversely effect EFH, and for identifying the most appropriate
method for providing EFH conservation recommendations to the state agency.
In some cases, project-specific recommendations may be required, in other
cases, programmatic recommendations may be appropriate.
2. Coordination with Federal Consultation Procedures
When an activity that may adversely effect EFH requires
authorization or funding by both Federal and state agencies, NMFS will
provide the appropriate state agencies with copies of EFH conservation
recommendations developed as part of the Federal consultations procedures
in section VI.C.
It's important to recognize
what's impressive and what's unimpressive about the changes to the NWP
program. Leading the positive side is the fact that the Corps has committed
to revoke NWP 26 permanently, albeit in two years. Leading the negative
side is that fact that the new, two-year version of Permit 26 will do very
little to slow down wetlands loss on the ground.
The proposed continuation
of the interim PACFISH strategies will provide the framework to guide supplemental
protective measures and analysis procedures for all applicable land and
resource allocations and management direction until the long term strategy
of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) is
complete. This is expected to be for the next 1 to 2 years in the applicable
portions of the Prineville, Vale and Spokane Districts in eastern Oregon
and Washington and all Bureau managed lands in Idaho. This proposed decision
extends the original PACFISH strategy originally approved for an 18 month
period in early 1995.
Initiative 188 came very,
very close but fell victim to the disastrous winter weather. Puget Sound
and our coastal waters are too important to lose to a winter snowstorm.
We will be refiling the initiative right away and will continue working
in 1997 to make marine waters and salmon habitat protection a reality.
According to State Senator
and Campaign co-chair Karen Fraser:
I have no doubt that the
people of Washington state want Initiative 188. 180,000 people signed petitions,
100 organizations endorsed the initiative, thousands of volunteers collected
signatures--and 77% of state voters indicated their support in a statewide
poll…Given this support, the legislature should pass this into law…I intend
to introduce Initiative 188 as a bill to the next legislature to keep these
important issues in front of our elected officials.
For further information on the Campaign for Marine Waters call People for Puget Sound at (206) 382-7007.
The window of opportunity
to achieve a constructive global settlement and avert years of costly,
divisive litigation is very narrow and closing rapidly. The Tribe respectfully
requests that you take the lead in quickly bringing the City of Tacoma
to commit to a good faith effort to negotiate a settlement of all Cushman
Project issues that will protect the Skokomish Tribe, other affected tribes,
and members of the general public, all of whom for nearly 70 years have
been adversely impacted by the Cushman project. The Tribe and federal resource
agencies necessarily will press the Commission to include in any license
granted Tacoma conditions that will substantially increase the token, totally
inadequate environmental and human protection and mitigation recommended
by FERC staff in the FEIS.
Tacoma City Light has reportedly said that FERC's fish and wildlife mitigation proposal, contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), would cost millions, possibly forcing it to shut down operations to settle the dispute over the dams on the Skokomish River.
1) A phase-out of juvenile
steelhead barging within three years (enough time to improve dam passage
so in-river survival is maximized); 2) Drawing down John Day Reservoir
on the Columbia River to speed up steelhead migration; 3) Protecting hatchery
fishing while we restore wild steelhead; 4) Insisting that the Federal
Columbia River Power System maintain its full financial obligation to restore
Idaho's steelhead.
For further information contact ISSU at (208) 345-4438.
AJ's original plan called
for the destruction of Sheep Creek Valley, 4 miles south of Juneau, under
300 feet of cyanide laced mine tailings. The proposal was stopped 18 months
ago when EPA decided the risks to downstream waters and the Juneau drinking
water supply were unacceptable. Weeks later EPA announced their intention
to investigate "submarine tailings disposal" (STD), as a new
disposal option for AJ. STD would have allowed the company to dump the
mine tailings directly into Taku Inlet burying approximately 10 square
miles of the bottom in one of S.E. Alaska's most productive crab, halibut,
and salmon habitats.
For further information contact the Alaska Clean Water Alliance at (907) 766-2296.
According to the most
recent assessment by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than a tenth
of all listed species for which it is responsible are actually improving
in status. Nearly four times that number are declining. And for about a
third, the Fish and Wildlife Service simply lacks the resources to determine
how they are faring...
For Further Information call the Environmental Defense Fund at (212) 505-2100; or visit their homepage at http://www.edf.org.
If you would like to have the Habitat Hotline E-mailed to you (formatted in Microsoft Word only), or if you like to be removed from our mailing list, please complete the form below and do one of the following:
| Your Name: | ||
| Your E-Mail Address: | ||
| Your Telephone Number: | ||
| ( ) | ||
| Please remove me from the Habitat Hotline | ||
| mailing list. | ||
50th Annual Meeting
of the
Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission
October 11-14, 1997
Hyatt Regency La Jolla
San Diego, California
____________
EDITOR'S NOTE: We welcome information on habitat
news in your area. Information should pertain to habitat of marine, estuarine,
or anadromous fish or shellfish. Feel free to fax us newspaper articles,
copies of letters, public hearing notices, etc., to (503) 650-5426. Funding
for this publication comes in part from Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration.
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this publication, or
about our habitat education program, please contact: Stephen Phillips,
Editor, Habitat Hotline, 45 SE 82nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone,
Oregon 97027-2522. Phone: (503) 650-5400, Fax: (503) 650-5426. Messages
can also be E-mailed to Stephen_Phillips@psmfc.org. Layout by Liza Bauman.
Printed on 100% recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber. Date
of Issue: 1/27/97.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive
Suite 100
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522
FIRST CLASS