I I fihtsrL,sf, I ffiJ-T'j I AN EVALUATION OT' ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES FOR MITIGATING IMPACTS OF TIIE SAN ONOFRE t NUCLEAR GENERAIING STATTON I I t I Richard F. Ambrose Mari-ne Science Institute University of California I Santa Barbara, California 93106 I I I I Prepared for: Marine Review Committee, fnc. 53I Encinitas BIvd., Suite J.05 T Encinj.tas, California 92024

I February, 1986 I I t AN EVALUATTON OF ALTERNAUVE TECHNTQUES FOR MITIGATTNG IUPACTS OF THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERJATINGSTATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SI'MMARY aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ii O.O PREFACE vi 0.1 Purpose of this report ...... vii O.2 Previous work on rnitigation by the MRC vii,i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..,...... 1 1.1 Mitigation ...... r... 1 1.1.1 Definition and General Application I 1.1.2 Procedure in California ...... 6 1.1.3 Application to SONGS 7 L.2 Irnpact Evaluation at SONGS 9 9 13 L4 L7 18 18 I 24 2.I.3 Benthic Invertebrates 33 2.L.4 Plankton 35 2.2 Resource Substitution: Out-of-kind l,titir gation 37 I 2.2.1 Habitat Restoration ...... o.. 38 2.2.2 Coastal preservation 4t 2.2.3 Information Acquisition ...... 42 I 2.2.4 Monetary payrnents ...... o... 43 2.2.5 Water euality Improvement ...... o...... o.... 45 2.3 Mitigation Banking .o...... o...... 46 prevention 2.4 Loss ..... 48 I 2.4.L rntake ...... r r r.....,... 49 2.4.2 Discharge ...... ,...... 52 2.4.3 Cooling Towers ...... o.... r. 35 t 2.4.4 Restriction of Operations ...... 55 2.5 Summary and Discussion ...... 58 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FUTURE SrUDY . O" " .... 63 4.0 LITERATURECITED ...... 73 I TABLESAND FTGURES ...... o...... 85 Appendix I. Mitigation policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildl ife Senrice ...... AL I Appendix 2. Sumnrary of Habitat Evaluation Method.s (including HEp and others) 423 Appendix 3. Correspondence with U.S. Fish I and Wildlife Ser:rrice .. .. o A28 Appendix 4. List of species at San Onofre Kelp Bed 432 Appendix 5. Technigues for establishing kelp beds aaaaaaaaa 448 Appendix 6. Techniques for restoring coastal wetlands A'52

I Glossary a a a a a a a aaata a a aa oa aaaaa a a a a aa a a... a a a a G1 I I I EXECUTIVE SUMI{ARY

This report presents an overview of options available for mitigating the possible effects of the san onofre Nuclear

Generating Station (soNGS), and evaluates the appropriateness of each option. The three types of mitigation techni.ques consid,ered, are: (1) those replacing lost resources with identical resources (in-kind compensation) , (2) those substituting d,ifferent resources for the rost resources (out-of-kind compensation), and (3) those avoiding or minirnizing the loss of resources (Ioss prevention).

Mit'igation is a process designed. to nininize the loss of resources or compensate for unavoidable resource losses that result from human activity. The ultirnate objective pf the mitigation

process is to maintain the functional and productive capacity of the ecosystem, while accomod,ating necessary d.evelopment of natural resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has an official

nitigation policy that establishes the framework for mitigation and. priorit,izes rnitigation planning goals on the basis of the value of the resource; in calj.fornia, the other government agencies involve6 in nitigation in the marine environment folIow the same general philosophy as FWS.

The fundamental principles guiding the FWSpolicy are that avoidance or compensation be reconmend,ed for the most valued, resources, and, the degree of rnitigation reguested correspond to the value and scarcity of the resource at risk. Two different kinds of rnitigative compensation are recognized: in-kind replacement of

11 resources involvinlt resources that are physically and. biologically similar to those being altered and that play sirnirar roles in ecosystem function, and out-of-kind substitution or resources involving dissiruilar resources. The most preferred, type of

compensation is in-kind replacement of species at the location of the inpact ("on-sitet,). The FWSrnitigation poricy focuses on losses of rrhabitat valuerr. However, a broader perspective may be necessary to evaluate nitigation in an open coast ecosystem.

In-kind replacement of resources that are lost due to the

operation of SoNGsrnight be accomplished by enhancing existing kelp beds, creating new kelp beds, constructing artificial reefs, constructing fish hatcheries, restoring fish nursery habitats, constructing invertebrate hatcheries, or manipulating natural habitats. In-kind, replacernent of resources is the most preferred method of compensationr so these techniques should be consid.ered for the majority of the resources and/or the most varuable

resources. The techniqrres that seem best for application at SONGS are (1) creating a kelp bed, and (2) constructing an artificiar reef.

out-of-kind substitution of lost resources could be acconplished by any of the in-kind techniques, or by habitat (especially wetland) restoration or enhancement, preserx/ation of coastal 1ands, information acquisition, or water quality improvement. For resources that cannot feasibly be replaced by in- kind techniques, out-of-kind techniques must be used to achieve compensation. The three out-of-kind, technigues that seem best for

111 application at soNGS are (1) restoring or enhancing a habitat, (2) acguiring inforrnation, and (3) acquiring and preserving coastal Iand.

The prevention of resource losses is generally the most favored technj-que for rnitigation. However, loss prevention technigues at SONGScannot be integrated. into project planni.ng or construction. Two loss prevention technigues, the Fish Return System and velocity caps, have already been implemented. at sONGs.

Implementing other techniques involving structural changes to SoNGS would involve unknowns in the areas of engineering, biorogical effects, and economics. Two loss prevention techniques that do not reguire structural changes are: restricting the flow rate of water through the cooling system, and shutting down operations d,uring seasons of high potential impact. It is not clear that seasonal restriction of operations wourd, be effective at soNGS. There are many unknowns associated with the techniques discussed in this report, making it difficult to evaluate their feasibility for use at soNcs. I have reconmend.ed,three stud.ies that will assess the feasibility of the most pronising mitigation techniques. Fj.rst, r recornrnend,stud.ying the feasibility of creating kelp beds. Techniques used, for establishing keJ.p. and the potential of different locations could be evaluated.. second, r reconmend studying the production of fish on artificial reefs. The relationship between fish production on natural versus artificial reefs could be investigated by surrreys of natural and, artificial reefs. Additional stud.ies of Pendleton Artificial Reef would also

1V be useful, and the MRCnight consider beconing involved in the planning and monitoring of large-scale experimental reefs to be built by the Department of Fish and Game. Final1y, r recommend determining the critical life stages of fish species at risk at SONGS. Identifying potential life-history bottlenecks through a detailed review of existing information would aid in evaluat,ing the feasibirity of utirizing fish hatcheries or restoring nursery habitat to compensate for fish losses. Finalry, r note that the lack of information about possible nitigation techniques is a significant obstacle to evaluating their feasibility, yet previous rnitigation efforts have not been studied closely. f suggest that, regardless of the technigue(s) chosen, the MRCrecornmend. appropriate evaluative stud.ies be cond,ucted..

A glossary of terms related to nitigation is includ,ed.

v PREFACE

The Marine Review Committee has been charged with d.eterrnining

the effects of the cooling system of the san onofre Nuclear

Generating station (soNcs) on the surrounding marine biota.

Initially, the aim of the MRC was to provid.e information to the

California coastal Comrnission (ccc) concerning possible changes in

the cooring systern of soNGS to prevent or red.uce any ad.verse

effects to the marine environment. rn Lg7g, the cornmission

recognized that some effects rnight be mitigated, without requiring

changes in the cooling system, as indicated by the following

excerpt from staff reconmendat,ions (Fischer 1979): n1he Commission also recognizes that operational changes or rnitigation measures night adequately compensate for any marine life damages resulting

from the operation of Units 2 and 3. The Cornmission, therefore, requests the MRC to study the feasibility and. effects of selected, prornising nitigation measures, including construction of an artificial reef, as suggested by Southern California Edison. The

MRC should recommend what measures rnight be taken to assure there would be no net adverse effect, on the marine environment from operation of soNGS units 2 and 3.r The MRC began investigating arternat,e mitigation measures in 19g0. rn 1994, the commission requested (Tobin, June 8, L984) that the MRC rfreview the work done to date on nitigation and determine if any additional mitigation research is appropriate. At the end of MRC study, the comrnittee should be able to recommend sound, feasible rnitigation measures for proj ect impacts . rl

0.1 Purpose of this report

The present project, ItA Study of Mitigationrr, was undertaken to summarize the rerevant work on rnitigation in the marine

environment and to evaluate the infonnation on potential mitigation

techniques as they relate to SONGS. The project has had, two tasks, each resulting in a report to the !{Rc. The first task was to

review and summarize existing infonnation on artificial reefs in order to evaluate the feasibility of using artificial reefs as a nitigation technique. The artificial reef report, including a bibliography, has been subrnitted. to the l{RC. The second. task was to identify other technigues for mitigating the possible effects of SONGS;this is the subject, of the present report.

The object of this report is to present, an overview of options available for rnitigation at soNGS, and to evaruate the appropriateness of each option. The report is in two parts. The first provides a general ovenriew of nitigation, particularly as practiced in Californj.a. It also provid,es a sunmary of predicted, irnpacts of soNGS. Because the MRCr s stud,ies of the impacts of SoNGs have not been cornpleted,, this sunmary is based. on pred,ictions made by the MRCat the conclusion of its pre-operational stud,ies (MRc 1979) and more recent reports by MRCcontractors. Although the surnmary of impacts of necessity must remain non-specific at this tine, it does identify the general tlpes of resources that rnay

v1'l need mitigation. The second part presents specific mitigation technigues that could be considered. for SONGS. These technigues

are organized by the type of compensation they provide, e.g. in- kind replacernent of resources or out-of-kind substitution of resources.

0.2 Previous work on miticration bv the MRC

The following earlier reports have been submitted to the MRC

as a result of work directly related to mitigation:

Sheehy, D. 1981. Artificial reefs as a means of marine nitigation and habitat inprovement in southern california. Report to the Marine Review comrnittee, Jan. 27, 1981. Aquabio, Inc., Colurnbia, Md. 68 pp.

Thum, A. , J. Gonor, A. Carter and M. Foster. 19g3. Review of Mitigation: Final Report,. Report, to the Marine Review Committee, Dec. 2l-, 1983. 7g pp.

Ambrose, R.F. 1985. Artificial Reefs. Vo1ume I: A Review and Analysis. volume rr: Bibriography. Draft report to the Marine Review committee, sept. L995. 165 pp. and 109 pp.

The report by sheehy (1981) prinarily sunmarizes various technigues used in Japan to enhance marine fisheries, although it also discusses how these techniE:es could be applied to rnitigate losses that night be associated, with S0NGS. The report by Thura et

4.. (L983) provides a brief overview of state and federal requirements for proper rnitigation, a case history of rnitigation of the environrnental effects of intertidal dred,ging and, filling of estuaries in oregon, and a review of nitigation legislation in

California. Thun et al. also discuss the results of the pendleton

viii Artificial Reef project, and suggest some alternative methods for utilizing artificial reefs as a means of nitigation. As discussed j.n the previous section, the report by Ambrose (1985) reviews information on artificiar reefs in order to evaluate the feasibility of using art,ificial reefs as a rnitigation technique.

Note that all three of these reports have focused on artificial reefs as a nitigation technigue

The MRC has also undertaken projects involving kelp, halibut, and biological community development on an artificial reef. The effectiveness of the Fish Return System has also been evaluated..

Some of the relevant reports for these projects are listed be1ow.

Lockheed ocean science Laboratories (LosL). 1983a. Pendleton Artificiar Reef, Benthic and fi;h community development, September lggl-Novernber 1993, Final Report, Volume I. Report to the Marine Review Committee.

Lockheed ocean science Laboratories (LosL). 19g3b. Pendleton Artificial Reef, Ptervqophora transplantation study, Final Report, volume rr. Report to thl Marine Review Cornmittee.

Lockheed ocean science Laboratories (LosL). l983c. succession on pendleton Artificial Reef : il,n artificial reef designed to support a kelp forest, Finar Report, volume rrr. Report to the Marine Review conmittee.

Allen, L.G., C.p. Onuf and M.S. Love. I9g4. Results of a pilot study on the distribution and abundance of, young-of-year carifornia halibut in the vicinities of Alanitos Bay and san onofre-oceansid,e, May-June, 19g4. Report to the Marine Review Committee.

DeMartini, E.E. 1995. Updated evaluation of fish diversion and prerirninary estimates of annuar fish losses at soNGS units 2 and 3. rn: April r9g5 year- -E.d.Report of the UCSB Fish project. ieport to the Marine Review Conmittee.

1X Although all of the preceeding reports have dealt with some aspect of rnitigation, the scope of each report has been 1j-rnited.. rn additj-on, most of the reports, even Thum et al. rs rReview of

Mitigationrt, have focused on artificial reefs. The present report is the fj-rst to present a variety of different techniques that could be considered for mitigating the effects of soNGS. CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION

1. I Miticration

Many development projects result in environment,al impacts.

Without preventative or remedial action, the cumulative effects of many projects would' result in a serious d.egradation of the environ-

ment. A number of different actions have been und.ert,aken i-n the United States to prevent or reduce environmental degrad.ation while still allowing rational use of our natural resources. Mitigat,ion

is one action that can be used. as a positive management tool to rnaintain environmental quality lvhile alrowing resource use.

1.1.1 Definition and general application

The concept of rnitigation is straight-forward.: red.ucing adverse impacts of a project, and cornpensating for unavoid,abre impacts, can prevent a net d,eterioration of the environment.

Although the concept of raitigation is simple, until recently there has been littre agreement on what rnitigation actually involves. Because there has been no generally accepted. d,efinition of nitigation, and because different government aqencies have had, dj.fferent goals and, perspectives, the appricat,ion of rnitigative actions to different developrnent projects has been uneven. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) atternpted to rectify this situation by providing a standard definition of rnitigation. Introduction - 2

Mitigation, as defined in NEpA (40 cRF, section Lsog.2), consists of:

a. avoiding the impact altogether by not t,akj_ng a certain action or parts of an action i b. niniTizinq impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its irnplementation; c. rectifvinq the impact, by repairj.ng, rehabilitat- ing, or restoring the affecled environmenti

d- reducincr. 9r erininaling the irnpact over tirne by preservation and maintenance operations duri-ng the life of the action;

e. compensation for the irnpact by replacing or providing substitute resources or- envir5nments.

since this definition applies to all federal activities and all types of environrnentar resources, the Fish and wild1ife

coordinat,ion Act (FwcA) has ad.opted a d.efinition directed specifi- cally at fish and wildlife resources: ilMitigationtt means (a) ressenincr wildlife resource losses to a project through loss prevention measures and (b) offsettinq losses through the use of other structural and nonstructural meisures. rrl,oss Preventionrt means designing and. irnprementing a project to avoid adverse irnpicts upon wilafife resources. rrcompensationrr means compretely (i.e. loo?) offset- ting losses to wildlife resource values. .'. .

The usFws has arso been concerned with rnit,igation, since they are the federal agency that is primarily charged, with evaluating impacts on wildlife. The Fish and, wildlife service and. other agencies serve prinarily as consultants for the agencies providing permits for project,s that may require rnitigation. The pennittingr Introduction - 3

agencies are required. to give great weight to recommend.ations by

FwS. In 198L, FWS published their official Mitigation policy; a

copy of this policy is includ,ed in Appendix I. The stated, purpose rrto of the policy is protect and consen/e the most important and.

valuable fish and wildlife resources while facilitating balanced,

development of the Nationrs natural resourcesrr (usFws 19g1, p.

7644; see Appendix 1).

The primary focus of the USFWSpolicy is the rnitigation of rrhabitat rosses of valuert (usFws 1981, p. z64s; see Appendix 1).

Fws defines habitat value as rrthe suitability of an area to support

a given evaluation species.rt The FWS feels that habitat value, by measuring carrying capacity of the species of interest (revaruation

speciesrr-see Glossary) , is a better basis for d,etermining nitiga- tion reguirements than population estimates. The focus on habitat, value seems to work well for terrestrial ecosystems. As an illus- tration, consider the consequences of developing a forest that is inhabited by a population of deer. Although the d.evelopment itself would not kill the deer, the area wou1d, lose its capacity to produce deer. Restoring the habitat value by prod,ucing a similar forest, ej.ther on the same sj.te or elsewhere, wou1d. restore the capacity of the ecosystem to produce d,eer. The FWS recognizes that nitigation of population losses per se may sometimes be necessary.

For exanple, rnj.tigation might be reguired when dam construction on a salmon river blocks rnigration routes, even though habitat value is not affected. Nonetheless, Fws believes that, rnitigation of Introduction - 4

impacts on habitat values will be sufficient in the rnajority of cases.

USFWShas devised the Habitat Evaluation Proced.ures (HEp) to

aid in quantifying the value of inpacted. habitats, and to provid.e

an objective method for evaluating alternative rnethods of habitat

management. HEP is described in rnore detail in append.ix 2.

Although HEP is gaining wide use in terrestrial habitats, its use

is st,iIl preliminary, and in many cases inappropriate, in the

marine environment. Current activities of the National Coastal

Ecosystems Team of Fish and wildlife focus on species that occur in

estuaries and coastal wetland.s, with no plans to becorne involved in marj-ne applicat,ions (Appendix 3 ) . Even though the formal Habitat

Evaruation Procedures have not been applied in marine systems, a modified version of HEP has been; the mod.ified. version uses the rrbest professional judgementtr of local experts to estimat,e habitat value (J. Fancher, personal communication).

Although the Fish and Wildlife Service has not been applying the formal HEP approach in the marine environrnent, their general nitigation policy, as presented, in the Fed,eral Register, would still apply to marine projects. fhe fundamental principles guiding the FWS policy are: r) that avoidance or compensation be reconmended for the rnost valued resources; and 2) that the-d.egree of nitigation reguested correspond to the value and scarcity of the habitat at risk. Four Resource Categories have been identified; these are described, along with their associated nitigation planning goars, in Tabre 1 (see also Appendix 1). As with all Introduction - 5 .i

aspects of the FwS mitigation policy, these resource categories reflect the enphasis on habitat vaIue. The rnitigation planning

goals distinguish between two fundamentally different types of nitigative cornpensation. rn-kind. replacement of resources involves resources that are physically and biologically similar to those being altered and that play similar roles in ecosystem function, whereas out-of-kind substitution of resources involves resources

that are physically and/or biologically dissirnilar in any number of characteristics (Ashe 1982). rn-kind compensation is generalry preferred, particularly for highly valued, resources.

Because of its involvernent in so many projects, FWShas a great deal of experience with nitigating terrestrial impacts. However, alr agencies, both federal and local, have relatively Iittle experience in rnitigation in the marine environment, part,icu-

1ar1y the open ocean. The lack of experience is compound.edby differences in the d.ynarnics of marine populations and, the relative lack of understanding of those dynamics cornpared.t,o terrestrial

populations. The lack of experience and, pertinent informat,ion may hamper the application of nitigation in open coastal situations. In addition, a narrol/t focus on habitat may not be appropriate

for marine ecosystems. For many terrestrial projects, where d,irect loss of wildlife may be rninimal and the target species are closely tied to particular habitat features, focusing on habitat may be appropriate. However, habitat loss is not the only type of loss during power plant operation. frnpingernent and entrainrnent, of organisms result in direct loss of organisms with little or no Introduction - 6

alteration to any habitats. For example, irnpingement of midwater

fish does not alter the mid.water habitat. Nonetheless, these are

resource losses that should be compensated.. Furthermore, many

marine species are less restricted, to use of local habit,at than

their terrestrial counterparts. Many invertebrates an4 fi-shes

whose adults are closely associated, with a particular benthic

habitat, have earlier life stages that are planktonic and subject to

entrainment losses. current FWS poricy appears inadeguate to address these problems.

At the state level, the development of rnitigation policies is

extremely variable. Nonetheless, state agencies play a major role

in the federal regulat,ory process, and strongly influence rnitiga- tion decisions. cariforni-a is one of the few states that has established clear rnitigat,ion reguirements in its coastal manag'ement pran. Thum et al. (1993) have reviewed. the sections of the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental euality Act that apply to mitigation in California.

In Californiar ?s elsewhere, the authority to require nitiga- tj-on measures rest,s with the permitting agency. rn add.ition to the pertnitting agency, d number of agencies serve in an ad.visory capacity, commenting on proposed, mitigation plans and, in some cases, helping to develop the p1ans. For projects that affect organisms in the rnarine environment, the agencies in california that are involved are the California Department of Fish and, Game Introduction - 7

(DrG), u.s. Fish and wildlife service (Fws), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The different agencies make ind,epend.ent comments on a particular p1an, but do not have a formal, co-ord,inated, rnitigation policy. However, as stated. by officials frorn each agency (D.

Lollock and R. MaIl, DFG; J. slawson, Nl,IFsi c. onuf, Fws) the general philosophy used to evaluate rnitigation proposals follows the federal guidelines estabrished by Fws. Thus, in-kind, on-site replacement of resources is the most preferred technigue, and out- of-kind substitution of resources is generalry less preferred.

However, wetlands have been accorded such a high priority for preservation by both local and federal agencies that wetrand restoration or enhancement is viewed as a relatively va1uable, albeit out-of-kind, rnitigative action.

rn spite of californiafs cornmitment to nitigation, its appri.cation in the marine environment, is a relat,ively recent developrnent. Most 1ocal coastal projects that have reguired. nitigaLion have involved harbors, bays or wetlands. Although maintaining a link with the rnarine environrnent, these habitats are very different from the open coastal habitat around, SoNGS. Few nitigation projects have been undertaken on the open coast of Southern California.

L.1.3 Application to SONGS

Mitigation can take two basic forms: avoid,ing potential resource losses of a project, and compensating for unavoidable fntroduction - 8

impacts. Because construction of SONGSis completed, there are

limited opportunities for minirnizing the irnpacts of SONGS, since

these generally involve changing the physical structure of the

plant. For exampre, a significant reduction in the pred,icted,

impacts (see below) might be achieved by altering the locat-ion of

intake and discharge of cooling water and the method, of discharge.

The MRC considered this possibility in 1980, and d.ecided that is

was not desirable at that time (t[Rc 1980) . Arthough incrud.ed.,

structural changes will be considered briefly in this report.

Note that Southern California Edison has already irnplemented

two mj.tigation measures at Units 2 and 3 that j.nvolved. structural

changes. A redesigned velocity cap has been enproyed. to reduce

fish entraprnent, and a Fish Return System (FRS) has been ernploye4

to minimize death of fish that are unable to avoid. entrapment. At

present' MRC studies evaluating the effectiveness of the FRS have

not been cornpleted (but see section 2.4,r.L for a summary of information to date).

The second set of mitigation technigues consid,ered. in this

report involve compensation for impacted resources. The compensa-

tion may be either in-kind., in which sirnilar (identical) resources

are used to replace those lost t ot out-of-kind, in which resources that are quaritativery different from the lost resources are substituted. Introduction - 9

I.2 Irnpact Evaluation at SONGS

The San onofre Nuclear Generating Station is located along the

open coast of Southern California (Figure 1). The I4RChas been

stud'ying the inpact of SoNGS on the marine environment since :t976.

The effort was d,irected. initially at documenting the effects of

Unit I, which was alread,y operational. Subsequent work was d.one to

develop predictions of the effects of Units 2 and 3 prior to their

operations, and monitoring was started to document possible effects after they becarne operational. t The I'IRC s prog'ram to deterrnine the ef fects of Units Z and 3

has two parts, a monitoring program, based on a before-after

control-impact (BAcr) sampring regime, and an examination of

rnechanisms by which SoNcs might irnpact organisms. Neither of these parts has been completed yet.

1.2.1 Predicted fmpacts

The cooling systern of soNGS could affect the narine ecosystern

in a variety of ways. Fish, plankton and other organisms are

killed when they are taken into the intakes. rn ad,d.ition, the

discharge prurne of units 2 and, 3 increases water temperature

slightly, makes the water near the diffusers more turbid,, moves

water and organisrns away from the diffusers to farther offshore,

and influences locaI water movementsi some of these changes in the

physical environment may adversely change the abundance of some marine organisms near SONGS. Introduction - 10

The MRcts studies have not been compreted, so the actual effects of soNGS on the marine environment are not known at present. However, based on studies begun in L978, the I"IRCreported. its predj-ctions about the expected effects of Units 2 and 3 to the Coastal Cornmission in 1980. These predictJ-ons are sunmarized, in the following sections, and will be used. as a guid,e in evaluating alternative means of mitigating the effects of SoNGS. Because studies of the irnpacts have not yet been completed, the pred,icted, impacts are of necessity d.iscussed. in general terms. Furthermore,

it is understood that the actual impacts may be ress or more extensive than the predi.ct,ions.

Evaluation of the irnportance of biological impacts rnay be complicated by the characteristics of the species affected.. For example, the range and abundance of a species will influence the severity of an impact of soNGS. For rocalize, rare, ot exception- ally valuabre species, an impact from soNGSmay have critical consequences for the population structure, and perhaps even 1ocaL persist,ence, of the species. rn contrast, even if the operation of soNcs resulted in increased loca1 rnortality of wid,espread. or abundant organisms, the overall effect on the entire population may be ninimal. Because of the difficulties in pred.icting and rneasuring irnpacts for such species, and the possibility of . unexpected inpacts, additional rnitigation technigues may have to be considered once actual impacts are determined.. of course, it is also possible that some predicted irnpacts will not occur; if this happens, some techniques (particularly for in-kind compensation or Introduction - 11

loss prevention technigues) described in this report will not be appropriate.

I.2.1.1 Kelp

The discharged water from Units 2 and, 3 may frequent,Iy replace

the ambient water over the outer half of the San Onofre Kelp (SoK) bed with more turbid water from nearer shore (see rig. 1). The

increase in the turbid,ity of the water might interfere with the recruitment and growth of early life-stages of the giant kelp

Macrocystis. It is not yet known whether such occurrences wil1 completely suppress recruitment in SoK. Recent evid,ence suggests that recruitment of young sporophytes and survivorship of young an4 adult sporophytes may be adversely affected. by SoNGS (Dixon et a1. 1s8s).

1.2.1.2 Fish

rmpacts to fish are predicted, to occur along three avenues:

(I) irnpingement of juvenile and, adult fishes, (2) entrainment of larval (i.e. planktonic) fish, and (3) degrad.ation of important fish habitats.

Impingement, which occurs when fish are driven against the travelingi screens and killed, is Iikely to exert the greatest effect on midwater fish species. The Fish Return Systern (I'RS) has been designed to ninirnize the loss of fish through irnpingenent by diverting some of the entrapped fish away from the traveling screens. The effectiveness of the FRS has been partially Introduction - 12

evaluated, and is discussed in more detail in section 2.4.1.1. rt

is clear that a large proportion of the fish that enter the intakes

of units 2 and 3 are diverted, by the FRs. However, the FRS is not

completely effective in diverting fish, and the survivability of

diverted fish has not yet been determined. Thus, the magnitud.e of

fish losses has not been estimated. yet, but there will be some 1oss.

The killing of fish larvae by entrainment occurs prirnarily by

larvae being drawn into the intakes, although some mortality may

also occur by being entrained in the discharged, water and, carried.

offshore. Entrainment could potentially affect any species with a

plankt,onic stage in its early life history. The ttRC pred.icted, that

entrainment, could lead to a srnarl but, appreciable loss in the

annual production of sport and commerciaL fish. The loss of larva1

stages is expected t,o have a greater impact than impingernent, of adult stages

The habitat expected to be irnpacted involves the kelp bed. at

san onofre. see Appendix 4 for a partial list, of the species at risk at the san onofre Kelp bed.. A number of fish species are closely associated, with kelp and nay be particularly susceptible to the loss of kelpt many other species nay also respond, to the loss of habit,at.

1. 2. 1. 3 Benthic fnvertebrates

It is also likely that the operat,ion of SONGSwill affect some benthic subtidal invertebrates. Any effect could proceed by two Introduction - 13

mechanisms. First, species with a pranktonic rife history stage

could be affected by entrainment, either through the intake or

through the discharge plume. Second, species could. be affected. by

alteration of habitat, particularly the kelp bed. For example, an

increase in turbidity or seclimentation at soK might lead to a

change in the benthic invert,ebrates occurring there. A partial

list of species that occur at soK is given in Append.ix 4.

1.2.1.4 Plankton

There is no doubt, that zooplankton are kilIed as a result of the operation of soNGS. However, in spite of the huge number of plankt,ers that are likely to be killed by SONGS, it seems probable that soNGS will have little overall effect on populations of prankton species because of their generation tirnes.

1. 2.2 Other possible irnpacts

The impacts discussed above are gienerally expected. to occur as a resurt of the movement, of water through the cooring syst,em at

SONGS. Some of the anticipated losses, such as entrainment and, irnpingernent, are the direct result, of water movement, while others, such as recruitment or survival of keIp, may be influenced by water turbidity or other indirect effects. These effects caused. by

SoNGS-induced changes in the physical/chenical environment have been the primary focus of the MRCfs studies at SONGS.

There are other avenues by which SONGS could have an effect on the marine biota. ft is possible that substances released from the Introduction - 14

plant, j.ncluding netals and biocides, could have ad.verse effects on

organisms in the vicinity of soNcs. A recent, report by perry and,

Fay (1986) suggested the possibility that metals from SoNGs could,

af fect local marine organisrns.

Particular concern has been expressed that possible effects on

the sand crab Emerita analoqa might indicate an adverse effect of

SONGSon a wide range of organisms. Earlier work by Wenner (1992)

suggested that SONGSaffected the local sand crab population. The

concentrations of metals in sediment,s and, sand, crabs have been d.etermined for a number of d.if ferent locations. Analyses to date

indicate that metals in the sediments are as Iow or lower at SONGS as elsewhere (Bence 1985), but that metal concentrations in the tissues of sand crabs may be higher in the vicinity of soNGS

(Parker 1985; J. Bence, personal communication). since no impact due to metals has been detennined at this tirner no particular nitigation technigue has been suggested, for this possible effect in the present report.

1.3 Summarv

The preceding outline of the predicted, effects of soNGS indicates that operation of soNcs rnay affect prankton, benthic invertebrates, fish and kelp. Because of the cornmercial and ecological importance of fish and keIp, the I"IRCin the past has emphasized the rnitigation of impacts to these resources. It is irnportant to identify and evaluate technigues for nit,igating effects of SONGSat an early date, to allow for a fu1I Introduction 15

consideration of the options and a resolution of any problems that

night' arise. Because operational monitoring of SONGShas not been

completed, it is not possibre at this tine to specify the actual

impacts of SONGS. Nonetheless, the probable types of effects have

been identified, even if they have not been guantified. The

nitigation alternatives presented in this report have been based. on these possible effects.

A preliminary indication of the type of mitigative action that

might be required can be obtained by placing the resources that

rnight be irnpacted by SONGSinto the Resource Categories established

by FWS (see Table 1). Ihe FWS has identified the tlpes of mitiga-

tive actions that wou1d. be appropriate for the different categories of resources.

KeIp bed habitats are valued because of their ecological

cornplexity and productivity, both among the highest of all natural

habitats. Because kelp habitats are relatively scarce, especially

between Dana Point and San Diego, they are classified. as Resource

category 2 by FWS (J. Fancher, personal communication), and, the

nitigation goal is to have no net loss of in-kind habitat vaIue.

Most of the other resources that are predicted to be affected

by soNGS do not fit, int,o the FWSrs Resource categories. This is

because, with the exception of the kelp bed and, its associated

species, most marine species are not closely tied to a particular habitat. Because of its focus on habitats, the traditional approaches to nitigation may not work well with the types of

irnpacts that may occur at SONGS. Introduction - 16

Nonetheless, the general rnitigation philosophy, where in-kind on-site rnitigation is the most prefered and out-of-kind rnitigation would only be acceptable for a very valuable substitute resource, is like1y to be applied, at SoNGS. This philosophy is expressed, in the following staternent by Onuf (198Si see Append.ix 3): rOn the assumption that kelp beds are at least as valuable as any other habitat in open coastal areas, in-kind, rnitigation (creation of new kelp beds, enhancement of existing kelp beds) is likely to be most widely acceptable (if feasible). The only out-of-kind rnitigations that night be acceptable are creation or enhancement of coastal wet,lands (in the broad sense of shallow, protected., open water surrounded by marsh) or a hatchery program for the species of greatest local concern.rr Of course, the IIRC is not restricted, to considering only those alternatives that are likely to be accept- abre to FWS and other agencies. rn the next chapter, a wid.e range of techniques for rnitigating ef fects of soNGS, incrud,ing those suggested by Onuf, are evaluated. CHAPTER 2

MITTGATION TECHNIQUES

This chapter discusses a wide variety of different technigues

that could be considered for nit,igating the effects of SoNGS. The technigues j.ncruded can be classified. into three general categories: in-kind replacement of resources, out-of-kind. substitu- tion of resources, and preventing the ross of resources.

There are no guidelines available for concej.ving or screening different, rnitigation alternatives (onuf 19g5, Rappoport rgTg). The

Fws Mitigation Poricy suggests that the Habitat Evaluation

Procedures (HEPi see Appendix 2) or Instream Flow fncremental

Methodology be used for evaluating project impacts and as a basis for formulating recornmendations for rnitigation, although no suggestions are made regard.ing how the rnitigation reconmendations are to be formulat,ed. The Mit,igation poricy does suggest, though, rrwhere that specific impact evaruat,ion methods or rnitigation technologies are not available, Senrice employees shal1 continue to apP1y their best professional judgrrnent to d,evelop rnitigation recommendationsrt (USFWS1981, p. Z6Sgi see Appendix 1). Th" nitigation alternatives in this chapter have been d,eveloped by referring to established mitigation technigues and consulting with environrnental professionals . Mitigation Techniques 18

2.1 Resource Replacement: fn-Kind Mitiqation

rn-kind repracement has been accomplished when inpacted resources have been replaced with exactly the same quantity and, type of resources. In-kind replacement is less complex to evaluate than out-of-kind substitution of resources because no object,ive rrresource measure of valuert need be applied; the same resource is compared. before and after inpact. Nonetheless, there are a number of difficulties to overcome. rt, is difficult to guantify the amount of resource involved, both before the irnpact and after the nitigation. It is also difficult to ensure that exactly the same resources are replaced. This problem becomes less irnportant if mitigation is viewed within the context of the ecosystem. The ecosystem concept ernphasizes the relationships and i.nteractions

between biot,ic and abiotic elenents of a system, rather than the abundance of a singre species (Ashe 1982). simirarly, habitat- based evaluation does not reguire that every species be present in its exact pre-irnpact abundance.

2 .I.1 Kelp

Kelp is recognized as a valuable natural resource in Southern California. fn addition to the nurnerous commercial uses for which it is harvested, it is a valuabte component of many natural communities. It adds vertical structure to a habitat, is an j.rnportant prinary producer, and is food for a large number of Mitigation Techniqrres t9

invertebrates as welr as a few species of fish. Kelp bed.s have

been perceived to be one of the most valuable marine habitats in

Southern California, so it, is not surprising that resource manag'ers

in Southern California are concerned. with in-kind, replacement of

lost kelp bed resources. Kelp habitat is particularly rare along the coast, near San Onofre.

2.L.1.1 Restoration of Existincr Kelo Beds

A number of kelp (Macrocvstis pvrifera) beds in southern

california have been subjected. to various techniques for

restoration. In the rnid-forties, kelp beds adjacent to some 1arge

metropolitan areas in Southern California began to deteriorate.

During this period, the discharge of d.omestic and, industrial wastes

increased near San Diego and Los Angeles, and, sea urchins became

more abundant (Wilson and McPeak 1983). Areas such as palos Verd.es

and Point Loma historically supported, large kelp bed.s, but became

devoid of kelp in the 1950ts and, 196Ors. Kelp restoration opera-

tions began at Point Loma in 1953 and at palos Verdes in 1967. The

restoration projects were undertaken by Wheeler North of California

Institute of Technology, the California Department of Fish and,

Game, and others. Following the restoration projects, kelp beds

re-appeared in these areas. It is irnportant to note, however, that the water quality in these areas improved dramatically at the same time as the restoration projects (wirson and Mcpeak 1983, R. Fay, personal communication), and this undoubtedly rnade possible the successful re-establishment of keIp. Mitigat,ion Technigues 20

Several different techniques can be used to restore kelp beds; these techniques are discussed in more detail in Appendix 5. rn locations where the loss of kelp has been attributed to the destructive grazing of sea urchins, the first step has been to Iower urchin densities. Many different methods of killing urchins have been tried; these rnethods are quite werl-estabrished, and reasonable success can be expected from their implementation. Kelp is then returned to the site by several methods. AI1 rnethods used during the successful restoration of kelp beds have involved, the t'ransplantation of existing kelp plants, usually adult sporophytes, frorn healthy beds. Other technigues that could be considered., bug have not yet been tested in a large-scale restoration, includ.e outprants of garnetophyte or very small sporophyte plants (see Appendix 5).

Although the restoration of kelp to areas that historically have supported kelp, but are presently d,evoid of ke1p, is an attract,ive venture, it probably would not constitute an appropriate nitigation action. Kelp beds in Southern California vary consider- abry (Neushul Mariculture rnc. 1991, Dayton et al. 1994). Bed,smay disappear for a number of years, only to return naturally. to their previous status. A previously-existing bed that would, be'restored for nitigation purposes night reappear naturally, without the nitigation effort. If the kelp would eventually have returned., the mitigation action would not result in a replacernent of resources. There are a few circumstances in which manipulation of an existing kelp bed could senre as in-kind mitigation. If the cause Mitigat,ion Technigues 2L

of the disappearance of kelp could be identified. as one that would.

persist without human intenrention. rn this case, long-term

resource values would be enhanced by restoring the bed. Further-

more, it is possible that some manipulation of a kelp bed, could

lead to greater temporal stability or higher productivity, and, this

would also result in sorne resource renlacement.

2.1.I.2 Creation of New Keln Beds

There have been a number of efforts to create new kelp bed,s in

California. Most of these have been associated. with artificial

reefs. Kelp has grown naturally on several artificial reefs in

Southern California, including the Paradise cove car bod,y reef in

santa Monica Bay and Beaurecrat Reef in san Diego. However, in

each case the bed persisted for a short period, of time, then

disappeared without ever recovering. (In the case of the paradise

cove Reef, the car bodies eventually d.isintegrated, thereby

removing the substrate available for kelp attachment. )

Kelp has been transplanted to several artificial reefs in an

atternpt to establish a kelp bed. The first transplant efforts were to reefs in Santa Monica Bay in 1959 and 196I (Turner et al" 1969).

More recently, adult and juvenile kelp plants were transplanted to the Pendleton Artificial Reef near San Onofre, fn both of these cases, the kelp plants eventually disappeared. rt has been suggested that the kerp suffered from heavy grazing by fish, but, even plants protected from fish grazing in Santa Monica Bay died.

The plants could have died because of conditj.ons associated with an Mitigation Technigues 22

E1 Nino that occurred during the transplant period., or because of stress associated with transplanting. Some recruitment to the artificial reefs has been noted, particularly at pAR (Table 2). However' none of the young plants have grown to adults sizes and generated a self-sustaining kelp bed.

In an experiment on factors affecting the growth of Macrocystis in cultivation, Neushul and Harger (1985) transplanted adult kelp plants (Macrocvstis auoustifolia) in different d,ensitj.es on an artificial substrate (a lattice-work of chains). (The use of M. augustifolia is interestirg, since this is a more northern species than M. pvrifera, and, its haptera morphology arrows it to grow on sandy substrates that are unsuitable for M. pvrifera. ) Although many of the originar plants M. augustifolia have disappeared (prirnarily because of storms), enough prants stirl remain after several years to form a d,istinct canopy (M. Neushul, personal communication). However, it is not clear that any recruitment of kelp has occurred, to the chains.

fn spite of the problems generally associated, with transplant- ing kelp to artificial reefs, there has been one case of successful est,ablishrnent, on a artificial substrate of a self-sustaining kelp bed through transplant efforts. A transprant operation td an artificial substrate in Los Angeles Harbor, begun ln 1977, success- fu}ly generated a kelp bed (Rice 1983). More than 700 adults plants were transplanted over a period of 4 years. The plants were attached to floats, which were in turn attached to nylon line and anchor chain. rn addition, very young plants attached to twine Mitigation Techniques 23

were added. Two sites were selected for the initial transplant, with each site measuring 15 m x 6r m. storms and fish grazing resulted in the virtual destruction of the plants at one of the sites; supplemental transplants at the other site maintained that bed, however. By 1979, natural recruitment occurred within the transplant area. This bed sti11 exists in 1986, nine years after its creation (R. Fay, personal communication) . Furthermore, sj.nce the creation of the bed, kelp has successfulry recruited to a number of new locations along the harborfs breakwater.

The previous examples of attempts to establish kelp have involved Macrocvstis. One atternpt has been made to establish a different species of keIp, ptervqophora californica, which is a smalr understory canopy prant (LosL L983b). A large number of adult Ptervgophora plants were transplanted. to Pendleton Artificial

Reef, and their status monitored for several months. However, like the transplants of Macrocystis that occurred concurrent,ly, the transplant effort failed to establish a kelp bed.

The prirnary technigue for establishing kelp in projects to- date has been transplanting adult or juvenile plants (see Appendix

5). Many of the failures may have been influenced by unpredictable and, unfavorable oceanogrraphic conditions beyond the control of the transplanters (Table 2). However, other factors, such as high fish densities, poor water conditions, unavailability of natural recruits, heavy sedimentation, etc., can be controlled by tbe choice of location for the transplant effort. The locations chosen so far rnay not represent the optimal ones for kelp growth, possibly Mitigation Techniques 24 ,: -

because of the rnultiple objectives of these artificial reef

projects. In addition, there are many techniques for establishing

kelp plants that have not been adequately explored..

one of the major questions to be resolved before constructing

an artificial reef for rnitigative purposes is the size that is

necessary for 100? compensation. For in-kind replacement of fish

resources, the relative amount of fish production on an artificial

reef compared to a natural reef must be known to deterrnine the size

necessary for 100? compensation (see section 2.L.2.1). The

resolution of this problern is potentially much easier for kelp. In

many areas, including the region around San Onofre, the availabil-

ity of suitable substrate seems to lirnit many kelp bed.s. Thus,

providing suitable substrate of an area equal to the lost kerp

resources may be adeguate compensation.

2.1.2 Fish

Like kelp, fish are consid.ered. to be a valuable resource southern california. A number of the fish species that rnight be affected by soNGShave economic value, either because of a commercial fishery or the sport fishery. Even those species that are not the focus of a particular fishery nay be ecologica.lly i.mportant. Although resource managers would probably assign a wide range of rrresource valuestt to different fish species, fish are generally considered to be a very valuable resource. Unlike kelp, there have been few attempt,s to actually apply in-kind nitigation techniques to fish; the techniques described in the next three Mitigation Techniques 25

sections appear to hold the most promise for successful applica- tion.

2.1.2.1 Artificial Reefs

Information about artificial reefs and their use in nitigation has been reviewed in detail in a separate report (Arnbrose 1985). This section sumrnarizes the conclusions of the artificial reef report.

one of the most controversial aspects of artificial reefs revolves around the question of whether they actually j.ncrease the production of fishr or sirnply attract fish. This question is important because if an artificial reef is to be used. to compensate for or offset a loss of resources, attraction alone may not be acceptable. The simple redistribution of biomass that occurs when fish are attracted to an artificial reef would not compensate for the loss of resources, since no new resources wouId be provid.ed.

For this reason, detennining the extent to which artificial reefs cont,ribute to fish production is a critical step toward,s evaluating the feasibility of utilizing artificial reefs contribute to fish prod.uction.

Fish almost inevitably gather around artificial reefs. In addition, a number of aspects of fish prod.uction have been shown to be enhanced on artificial reefs, although in most cases the d.ata are not definitive. some fish species feed predominantly on organisrns similar to those found on artj-ficial reefs. Observations of recruitment to temperate artificial reefs suggest that Mitigation Techniques 26 -: - artificial reefs may enhance the recruitrnent of some fish species. There have also been suggestions (but no data) that the refuges provided by artificial reefs enhance the survival of some species. In contrast, some studies indicate that artificial reefs rnay actually reduce survivar by focusing fishing pressure on a reef.

Unfortunately, rnost of the studies of fish on artificial reefs have not been systernatic or quantitative. Exist,ing information suggests that artificial reefs increased the production of at least some fish species. However, no study of artificial reefs in the rnarine environment has yet dernonst,rated, that total fish prod.uction has been increased as a result of reef construction. rncreased. fish production cannot sirnply be assumed., particularly in light of evidence suggesting that mortality due to fishing may be increased.. fn spite of the fact that artificial reefs have not been shown to increase the overall production of fish, they remain one of the rnost promising rnitigat,ion alternatives. A number of questions about, their functj.on need, to be answered. before they can intelligently be implernented, however. The prirnary unknowns include the influence of different design features or configura- tions, and the sirnilarity (in tenns of the abundances and, prod,uc- tivity of organisms) between artifj.ciar and. natural reefs.- There are a wide rang,e of design possibilities for artificial reefs; however, reef construction in California has historically focused on a fairly lirnited set of configurations, and j.t seems like1y that any reef intended as a rnitigation measure would not depart greatly from thls set. The typicar carifornj-a reef j.s Mitigation Technigues 27

const'ructed from blocks of quarry rock. The quarry rock is placed, in large piles; many reefs, particularly those built most recently, have consj-sted on a number of piles (or mod.ules) separated. by a hundred or more meters of sand.. Nearly all artificial reefs in southern california have been surround.ed by a large expanse of sand.

Even utilizing the general type of artificial reef constructed in California, there are a number of variations in configuration

that could significantly alter the mitigation potential of the reef. It would be advisable to understand, how these factors j-nfluence the function of an artificial reef, preferably before beginning the pranning stages and certainry before beginning construction.

The function of an artificial reef must be compared. to that of natural reefs in order to evaluate the relative benefit to be

derived from the artificial reef. This inforrnation is critical for determining the size of the artificial reef to be constructed.

only by knowing how much better (or worse) fish prod,uction is on an artificial reef wirl we be able to determj,ne how large a reef

should be to achieve loot compensation for loss of production on a natural reef. It is therefore important to guantify the extent to which fish production can be increased, rather than sirnply whether it is increased. The productive potential of an artificial reef could then be used in a manner sirnilar to the way FWSuses habitat. value: information on the relative prod,uctivity of artificial reefs could be used to determine how extensive a reef must be in order to Mitigation Techniques 28

provide 100? compensation. At present, the inforrnation on fish

production is not sufficient to provid.e the reguired estimates of benefits.

2 .l-.2.2 Fish Hatcherv

A hatchery could serve to mitigate the loss of fish resources

by providing juvenile fish for release in the wild. The potential

use of f ish hatcheries in rnitigatj.on is controversial. Hatcheries

seem to be a promising rnethod for restoring the populations of some

species, particularly anad,romous fishes. However, the efficacy of

their use for marine species has not been demonst,rated..

Salmon hatcheries represent a model for attempts to restore a

fishery. Although not all problems related, to the salmon fishery

can be solved by building hatcheries, in cases where the nurnber of

smolts entering the sea limits the nurnber of adults that return to

freshwater, a hatchery (as werl as other techniques) can

effectively enhance the fishery (Ellis and Mcreil lg7g, peterman

1980). A11 najor salmon producing nations are currently enhancing

salmon stocks (Healey I9g0); in California, the Departrnent of Fish

and Game operates six salmon and steelhead, hatcherj-es, with the Mad

River hatchery designated for the maintenance and enhancement of

salmonid runs in California (Hassler 1984). Sahnon represent an

ideal situation for a hatchery program. Sa1mon are one of the rnost

extensively studied fishr so critical factors in different life

stages have been identified (see McNeil and Himsworth 19gO).

Furthernore, the return of adults to the stream in vrhich they were Mitigation Technigues 29

born makes them ideal for both enhancement efforts and stud.ying the effects of enhancement efforts.

rn contrast to the situation with sarmon hatcheries, the

effectiveness of hatcheries for marine fish has not been firmly

estabrished. rn california, the feasibility of marine fish

hatcheries is just beginning to ,be evaruated.. Two species have

been targeted by the California legislature and the Department of

Fish and Game for research with regard,s to establishing a hatchery

program: the white seabass, Cvnoscian nobilis, and the California

halibut, Paralichthvs californicus. These programs are sti1l in

their early stagesr so there are no data on their effectiveness.

The rearing program for the California halibut has been und.er-

taken jointly by DFG and Southern California Ed.ison at Ed.isonrs

laboratory in Redondo Beach. Halibut have been successfully reared,

from egg to post-feeding juveniles (approxirnately 2 cm rong). The

technigues for raising larvae have been deveroped; at present,, one

of the difficulties is inducing the ad,urt haribut to spawn, in

order to insure a constant supply of eggs (K. Herbinson, personal cornmunication) .

The program for rearingr white sea bass is located at Hubbs

Research Center in San Diego. The prograrn has been successful at getting two groups of white sea bass to spawn at any desired, time, regardless of the norrnal spawning period. Techniques for collect- ing and hat,ching eggs have been worked out, and, the program is now experimenting with the effects of different rearing densities and food types (D. Kent, personal communication). A very few animals Mitigation Techniques 30

have survived for up to two years; there are presently no estirnates

of survivability, but these will soon be generated. from a spawn of 2000 eggs.

Even if the potential for rearing young marine fish is

realized, it is not clear that a hatchery program will satisfact-

orily compensate for impacts to fish. For example, the bottleneck

for California halibut could be the nursery habitat for young-of-

year (Allen et al. 1985); if sor no matter how many young halibut

are released, only a certain number will survive, and survival may

depend heavily on where they are released.. The situation with the

white sea bass may be even more problenatic. Little is known about

their natural history, although the early life history of white sea

bass appears to be quite complicated, (K. Herbinson, personal

communication), and the potentiar bottlenecks have not, yet, been

identified. In contrast, the bottlenecks have been ident,ified, in

the salmon fishery, and it is clear that a hatchery could enhance the fishery (El1is and McNeil rg7g, Healey r9go, peterman 19go).

It' is clear that more information about the life history of marine fish species must be known in order to d,etermi.ne whether a hatchery will be successful for nitigation.

Finally, it is not obvious which fish species should,'be chosen for hatchery rearing. SONGScould potentially impact a multitud.e of species, yet, not all species can be reared. in a hatchery and released. Selection probably should be based on speci.es that are ecologically or econonically important and can be reared in a cost- effective manner; furthermore, there shourd be evidence that Mitigation Technigues 3I populations of the reared species would. actually benefit from the hatchery program.

2.1.2.3 Restoration of Nurserv Habitat

Sorne fish species at risk at SONGSrnay be closely associated with a particular habitat during their early life stages. ff this habitat supports a critical life stage, and the habitat, has been degraded by anthropogenic activities, then restorat,ion of the habitat could result in increased population sizes for the target species. This approach to habitat restoration is close to the approach taken for many terrestrial rnitigation projects. Restora- tion of nursery habitat could also be used, as an out-of-kind, nitigation technigue for species that are not at risk at soNGS.

For many fish species, coastal wetrands are purported. to be essent,ial nurseries. Zedler (Lg82) has reviewed. inforrnation on the use of California coastal wetlands by fish. Species using wetland,s in Southern California for spawning or nursery grround.s are 1isted. in Table 3. The California halibut and d,iamond.turbot (Hvpsopsetta cruttulata) are the commercial species most of,ten cited, as using wetrand channels for nursery grounds, but nany other taxa use a variety of wet,land habitats. Rad.ovich (1982) suggests that several fish species, such as the California yellowfish, need, wetland,s to survive, and that others, such as white sea bass and California halibut, benefit from wetland,s. Norby (cited in zedler ],982) suggests that estuaries are used by transient species that come in Mitigation Technigues 32 :_

to spalrn; in addition, rarvae may encounter fewer predators in estuaries.

Because the life histories of all the species at risk at SoNGS are imperfectly known, it is not possible to provid.e a definitive

list of species that would be cand.id.ates for restoration of their nursery habitat. However, recent work by Alren et aI. (19g4, 1985) for the MRC j.ndicates that California halibut rnight benefit, from such restoration. Young-of-year halibut apparently do not occur in exposed beach areas, but rather are concentrated. in ernbayrnents.

Allen et al. (1985) estirnate that 90? of the suitable harbors in California have been altered,. Thus, destruction of nursery areas may have contributed to the decline in halibut populat,ions. It is possible that restoration of some nursery areas cou1d. result in a larger halibut population size.

Kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus) populations rnight also benefit from habitat restoration. Recent work by Carr (I98S) has indicated that very young kelp bass are closely associated, with Macrocvstis prants. This early life stage of kelp bass couId represent a bottleneck for the population. If so, creation of new kelp habitats or modification of existing beds cou1d enhance the kelp bass population.

There are two classes of problems associated with restoring nursery habitats: inadeguate information, and logistical difficul- ties. For many species, including the california halj.but, the critical habitat parameters have not been id,entified,, so it is not clear which features of the habitat should be altered to make the Uitigat,ion Technigues 33

habitat more suitable for halibut. Logistically, one problem with habitat restoration projects is that they can be costly. perhaps

more importantly, the anthropogenic activities that originally made the habitat unsuitable rnay still be occurring, and may have a

higher priority that halibut. For example, port activities in Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego may be incompatible with suitable halibut, habitats, but probably cannot (and. should not) be curtailed in order to achieve suitable habitats. Thus, the number of sites available for restoration may be severely limited. Furthermore,

there have been few attempts to restore likely nursery areas such as ernbaYments(see section 2.2.I), so the necessary technigues have not been developed.

Because of these problems, it, seerns likely that restoration of nursery habitats will not be a wid,ely applicable technigue for in- kind replacement of fish resources. However, under the correct

circumstances it could be valuable. Further information on the early life stages of species at risk at SoNGSwould, help identify cases for which nursery restoration might be suitable.

2.1.3 Benthic Invertebrates

, Few of the benthic invertebrates that rnight be affected by soNcs are conmercially valuable. However, invertebrates in general play an irnportant role in ecosystem function, and thus it is worth considering ways in which this resource could be replaced. Mitigation Techniques 34

2.1.3.1 Artificial Reefs

one possible in-kind compensation rnethod for benthic inverte-

brates would be the construction of an art,ificiar reef.

A great deal of research has been devoted, to following the

succession of invertebrates on artificial reefs (e.g. in

california, see Turner et aI. 1969 and LosL 19g3a, 1983b, 1983c).

These data clearly indicate that the invertebrate fauna of an

artificial reef changes over tirner so that for many years the fauna

of an artificial reef rnay differ from that of a naturar reef.

Nonetheless, many of the species occurring on natural reefs also

occur on artificial reefs, and there is no reason to expect that

the cornmunity occurring on an artificial reef would not eventually be identical to that expected, on a sinilarly-configured, natural reef. However, the tirne-tab1e for convergence of natural reefs is not known.

2.1.3.2 Invertebrate Hatchery

The mariculture of invertebrates has a long and, successful history. rn many countries, such as Japan and other Asian countries, mariculture is an important industry. Technigues for invertebrate rearing are constantly irnproving, making invertebrate hatcheries more efficient (see Morse r9g4, Morse et al. 19g4). rt has also been demonstrated that warm-water effluent from power plants can be used to advantage for rearing invertebrates (Leighton et aI. 1981). Along the Pacific Coast of North America, attempts Mitigation fechnigues 35

have been made to culture oysters, abalones, clams, mussels and.

scallops; only scallops are not currently cultured for the

commercial market (Chew 1984). Unlike fish hatcheries, however,

invertebrate cultures generally have not been used. to enhance

fisheries. one exception to this general rule is the commercial

rearj-ng of abalone (Ebert and Houk r9g4), where a nurnber of

outplants have been made to t,ry to restore the abalone fishery in California.

The experimental abalone enhancernent program began in the late

1970rs (Tegner 1984a). Four approaches have been used to enhance

abalone stocks: (1) seeding hatchery-reared juveniles, (2) habitat

modification to provid.e nursery areas, (3) fishing closures to

allow natural recovery, and (4) transplantation of adults as brood.-

stock. Seeding has occurred at a number of locations in Southern

California, including San Miguel Is1and., Palos Verd.es peninsula,

Santa Cruz Island, Pendleton Artificial Reef, and Santa Barbara

(Tegner 1984a, Schmitt and Connell 1984). fn spite of the trenen-

dous numbers of abalone outplanted, there is no evid.ence to suggest

that any outplants have been successful (Tegner t9g4b), and one

definitive study dernonstrated that two outplants at Santa Barbara

failed (Schnitt and Connell I9g4).

Besides using commercially-reared abalone to enhance a

fishery, mariculture of a number of invertebrate species could be considered for nitigation. Depending on the species, this technigue could be considered either in-kind or out-of-kind

Species that rnight be considered are oysters, shrirnp, and lobsters. t'titigation Techniques 36

Chew (1984) dj.scusses current hatchery efforts for oysters, c1ams,

rnussels and scallops. Recent work by Leighton and phleger (1984)

suggests that the rock scalrop (Hinnites giganteus) nay also be a good candidate for culturing.

2. 1.3 . 3 !{abitat restoration

In general, there appear to be few technigues for manipulating

habitats specifically for the purpose of rnitigating the loss of invertebrate resources. However, surfgrass appears to serve as a nursery area for spiny lobsters (panulirus interruptus) (Engle

I979), so that restoration or enhancement of surfgrass habitat niqht' be considered as a means of enhancing lobster populations.

The possibility of altering the habitat to favor abalone recruit- ment or survival has also been raised, (Tegner 1984a). The Japanese make extensive use of habitat rnodifications, mostly in conjunction with artificial reefs, to increase the yield of their invertebrate fisheries or mariculture projects (Mottet 1995, Mommaet aI. lggo). The Japanese have focused on abalone and, urchinsi some of the techniqrres used by the Japanese rnight be applicable to Southern California species.

2.1.4 Plankton

rt' seems likely that there is no way to provide in-kind replacernent of plankton. Mitigation Techniques 37

2.2 Resource substitution: out-of-Kind Miti.ration

The goal of out-of-kind substitution of resources is the same

as for in-kind replacement, that is, the value of the resources

after nitigation should, be the same as before the project existed.

However, planning for and docurnenting the achievement of this goal

is far mor,: difficult, since the resources involved. before and.

after the project are different,. To insure that, looA compensation

is achieved, some objective measure of trresource valuer must be applied.

As with in-kind replacement of resources, it is difficult to

determine the arnount of resource involved., both before the irnpact and after the mitigation.

One of the largest obstacles to objective application of out-

of-kind nitigation is the difficutty of putt,ing a value on

dissirnilar resources. There have been many d.if ferent approaches to

this problem. The trad,itional approach is to value the resource

according to it,s market, value. Unfortunately, wi1d.life resources

tend to be undervarued by this approach. Gosselink et al. (rg74)

have attenpted to value resources according to their ecosystem

functionr ds measured by energy f1ow. Although this general

approach is adnirabre, the specific rnethod.ology enployed by

Gosselink et, al. has been severely criticized (Shabrnan and, Batie

1978). There presently is no consensus regarding the technigue to be used for valuing resources. The FWS has developed, their Habitat

Evaluation Procedures in part to avoid, problens of subjective Mitigation Techniques 38

evaluation of dissirnilar habitat resources. At present, however,

there is no generally accepted, technigue for valuing wildrife

resources. onuf (1985) states that rfthe deternination of the

relative values of grossly different kind.s of habitat is a rnatter

of interpreting policy, not the application of a rnethod. of habitat

assessment which assumes that the same resources are at issue.rr In

practice, the appropriate 1eve1 of effort in out-of-kind. compensa-

tion is decided subjectively by resource managers.

2.2.1 Habitat Restoration and Enhancement

Habitat restoration is one of the most freguently used. techniques for rnitigation, both for in-kind. replacement and out-of- kind subst,itution of resources. Many restoration projects have been undertaken in terrest,rial, freshwater and marine or estuarine habitats.

The prevailing ernphasis on habitat restoration is undoubt,edly due in part to the habitat-based, mindset of resource managers, ds reflected, (and, to some d,egree d,irected.) by the FWSrnitigation policy (see Appendix 1). rn other words, if irnpacts to be nitigated are measured in terms of habitat value, then mitigation techniques will naturally focus on habitats. I have argued earlier that the ernphasis on habitat associ.ations may not be as appropriate for some marine speciesr so that in-kind replacement of resources may not be possible by focusing solely on habitats. Nonetheless, restoring degraded habitats remains a valuable nitigation alterna- Mitigation Techniques 39 tive. For impacts in the marine environrnent, habitat restoration is particularly attractive as an out-of-kind techniqr:e.

The irnportance of protecting and restoring wetlands has become widely recognized. The high value given to wetland,s is reflected, in the California Coastal Commissionrs Statewide Interpretive

Guidelines for wetlands (1,981). The restoration and, enhancement of coastal wetlands in Californj-a has become a significant activity in the past decade, with projects ranging in size from less than an acre to over 200 acres, and designs ranging from smarr-sca1e vegetation planting to earthmoving and, tid.al restoration (Josselyn and Buchholz 1982).

Between the Mexican border and Point Conception there are about 30 wetlands (Figure 2; zedler 1992); deveropment has dest,royed 70-80* of, these areas (carifornia coastal zone

Conservation Connission 1975). To counter this trend., a number of wetland restoration projects have been implemented, along the coast of California in recent years. Josselyn and Buchholz (l.gg2) report,

33 coastal wetland restoration projects cornpleted in California by I982i nost of these projects were j.n San Francisco Bay. Six of the L5 restoration projects involving rnajor substrate alterations serrred mitigation objectives; two of these, Big canyon in Newport Beach and San Diego Bay Wildlife Reserve in Chula Vista, occurred in Southern California. Gates (Lgez) has cornpiled an extensive inventory of coastal wetlands throughout California that have a potenti.al for restoration. Gates reports 20 current restoration Mitigation Techniques 40

projects in southern california, many in the planning or review stages (Table 4).

There are many technigues that can be used to restore or enhance a degraded wetland; these techniques have been summarized, by zedler et a1. (1992), which is included in this report as Appendix 6. Williams and Harvey (1983) also d.iscuss some of the details of designing a sart marsh restoration project,. wet,land.

rest'oration proj ects have involved construction of d.ikes, channels and islands; installation of tid,e gates or other water control structuresi regulation of water leve1s; introduction of vegetation; and rnanipulatj.on of animals. For example, zedrer (1994) has been working on the artificial establishment of cordgrass (Spartina

foliosa), particularly by transplantation and germination from seed. cordgrass has been pranted at the san Diego River marsh,

Tijuana Estuary, and south san Diego Bay (zedler t9g4). The technology of wetland construction is still at an early stage, and j.rnportantry, more the successful establishment of a wet,land comrnunity as a result of wetland restoration has not, been documented (Race 1993, Barnhart and Boyd L9B4). Seagrass habitats are also consid,ered to be rich, productive habitats, and rest,oration of seagrass habitats has received. increasing attention in recent years. seagrass has been transplanted and anchored in a number of different ways: clumps or frplugstr of turf have been moved (Goforth and peel ing 1979, Breedveld 1975); seeds have been planted (Churchill et al. t97g) i and whole short-shoots have been planted without associated I Mitigati.on Techniques 4I I sediment (churchirl et al. 1979, Fonseca et al. rgTg). These I methods have achieved varying degrees of success.

I 2.2.2 Coastal Preservation I Recently, groups concerned with maintaining the guality of the environment have acguired land to set asid.e as preserves. Land, I acquisition has also been used as nitigation for some coastal development projects (Ashe 1982). Acguiring and preserving coastal I land could serve to rnitigate impacts to the marine environment. I However, resource preservat,ion per se is not consistent with the general philosophy of rnitigation. with preservation alone, 10 I resources are produced to compensate for project-related losses, so that there is a net loss of resources. This approach sirnply tries I to protect some of the remainj.ng wildlife resources, rather than trying to return the resources in the system back to their pre- I project level. I Land acquisition could be appropriate rnitigation if the acquired land would otherwise be degraded,t if this were the case, I than preserving the land would not necessarily result in a long- tern loss of resources. Given the recent history of the develop- I ment, of coastal lands in California, land acguisition rnight be a I viable rnitigation techniqrre for soNGS. For example, wetland, habitat is in danger of elirnination in California in spite of its I perceived value; since rnuch of the wetland habitat is in private ownership, zedler (],982) argues that development, in and around I wetlands will continue unless wetlands or easenents are purchased I I I Mitigation Techniques 42 I .: _ for public management. In this situation, where the resource would I eventually be lost to developrnent unless the tand, is acguired, and preserved, coastal preservation could serve as a valuable technigue

I for maintaining long-tenn resource values. Land, acguisition is an I even more attractive alternatj.ve if the acquisition is accompanied by a habitat restoration effort to restore the value of the 1and, I (see section 2.2.I) . I 2.2.3 Infonnation Acquisition I Mitigation can sometimes take the form of studies, if there is a recognized rack of knowledge about the resources involved.. I Studies could be particularly valuable where actions or reconmenda- tions by government agencies have been hampered by the lack of I information, There have been a number of cases where studies have been

I reconmended as at least part, of the rnitigation requirement. Recent I examples in southern california, cited. by Nancy Gilbert of the Division of Ecological Services of Fish and, Wild,1ife, include: 1) l Study of an adjacent lagoon was recommend,edin response to building on a mesai the study was to provi.de infornration about the value of I the lagoon that would be valuable for future management decisions. I 2) Study of the irnpact of isolation on the ecological functioning and integrity of vernal pools was recornmend,ed,as part of an overall I nitigation package that, included, preserx/ing existing vernal pools. I 3) study of the effeets of shading on eelgrass was recommended as I I I Mitigation Techniques 43 I part of a recent perrnit for a deveropment tha! wourd impact I eelgrass beds. I A significant problem with using research as a mitigation technique is that research does not directly change resource I values. Thus, after the research is completed, there sti1I could, be a net loss of habitat or other resource valuesi for this reason, I many resource managiers do not consider j.nformation acguisition to be valid nitigation (J. Fancher, personal communication). fn the I long-term, however, research could be very beneficial. Research j'nto I rnitigation problems and, applied, solutions could ultirnately result is increased resource values through the application of I novel technigues or information. This technigue would be most useful where traditional nitigation techniques are inappropriate,

I or there exists no clear consensus on the procedure to follow for a I particurar resource, such as mid,-water fishes or prankton. rt could be implemented as a separate techniguer of j.t couId be I integrated as a condition of a pernj.t, in conjunction with implementing I another technique. 2 . 2 . 4 Monetarv parrment I rt is possible for reductions in resource value to be cornpen- I sated for by calculating the monetary value of the resources, and paying an appropriate arnount to the agency charged, with protection I of the resources. Two different directions have been taken with this approach. In the first, the payinent involves rnondesj.gnated I feesfr, where the money is directed into a general wildlife fund. I I I Mitigation Techniques 44 I In the second, the payrnent involves rfd.esignated, feesr, where the I money is directed specifically for the rnitigation of specific project-related, irnpacts. Ashe (1992) does not consider

I nondesignated fees to be a viable rnitigation option, since they d,o I no address the irnpacts at issue. However, designated fees could. be appropriate under the proper ad.rninistrative framework. I The purpose of payrnents in lieu of rnitigation is to generat,e funds that will be sufficient t,o finance an effective program of I rnitigation. Deterrnining the appropriate dollar value of the I resource is a major problem. The dorrar value chosen has traditionally been the result of an arbitrary decision process and. I rarely reflected the full value of the resources lost (Ashe 1982). Ashe suggests that monetary payrnents will only be a viable alterna- I tive when they represent the true replacernent cost of the altered resources (i.e. payrnent sufficient to provide for replacement I resources) . I An example of the application of d,esignated, fees in nitigat,ion is the Vernal Pools Preservation Fund. in San Diego County (Gilbert, I personal communication). The purpose of the Fund, is to purchase and preserve existing vernal pooIs. Deveropers who will impact I vernal pools rnake payrnents into the Fund; the money j_s banked. until I sufficient funds exist to begin managing the pools. Arthough the fees are designated, there are a number of problems with this I approach, including the fact that preser:vation j.s the goalr so there will be a net ross in habitat varue. The vernar pools I Preserrration Fund acts like a nitigation bank in reverse (see I I I Mitigation Techniques 45 I section 2.3) t it rnight be termed a ttmitigation loanil, since I resources are actually rrlentrr to the developers until the Fund I becomes active. I 2 .2 .5 Water Ouality frnprovement one mitigation technigue that has been utilized in terrestrial I environments is to have the company responsible for a project to reduce the i-rnpacts to the environment that are produced by a I separate, unrelated project. The California Air Resources Board, I has required that new sources of air pollution, if perrnitted, should cause a net benefit in the air quarity of the region. The I policy is based on the theory that air quality impacts in one area can be nitigated by air quality irnprovements at another site within I the rrairshedrt (Ashe 1982). For exarnple, Stand,ard oil had agreed to reduce Southern California Edisonts emissions at a power plant as t nitigation for one of Standard, oilts proposed. refineries (Ashe I 1982). Similarly, oi1 drilling and processing developments in the santa Barbara nay nitigate their irnpacts on air quarity by I irnproving ernissions of other operations off-site (8. Durous, personal cornrnunication). rn both,cases, the underlying idea is I that the project-related impacts are rnitigated because the overall I air quality has not been degraded. A sinilar approach could be used for water quality in the I Southern California Bight. As mitigation for adverse effects of water quality as a result of discharged water frorn SONGS, SCE might I improve the water quality at another site within the Bight. Any I I Mitigation Techniques 46 number of different irnpacts to water quality would be eligible for improvement. For exarnple, a selrage treatrnent plant rnight be upgraded, or an industrial discharge improved. The nitigation effort could involve a general improvernent j.n water quality, or it night be tied to a particular aspect, such as the heavy met,als.

2.3 Miticration Banking

Mitiqation banking is a procedure that can be used, for either in-kind replacement or out-of-kind, substitut,ion of resources. Fws refers to nitigation banking as rrpredevelopment compensation actionstr, where habitat values are banked, for the express purpose of compensating for unavoidable losses that might occur in the future (USFWS1981). A nitigation bank acts much like a rnonetary rfdeposigstt bank: are made to establish rrcreditstt, and these credj.ts are debited as circurnstances require. The deposits are established by undertaking a particular project that restores a habitat or is otherwise appropriate for mitigation before the developrnent activity takes place; the value of the project is determined, by the government agencies involved. The key to the rnitigation banking concept, however, is that the rnitigation project is not necessarily tied to any particular development project. Thus, if an organiza- tion plans a number of projects that, will require rnitigation, it can undertake one large nitigation project that will eventually cover a number of different developrnent projects, rather than nitigating each project separately, on a piecemeal basis. A Mitigation Technj.gues 47 -: -

nitigation bank can arso be estabrished. for many different developers.

There are a number of advantages to rnitigation banking. Pooling the rnitigation requirements for a number of different development projects allows comprehensive planning for a larger mitigation effort than would otherwise be possible. A rnitigation bank would facilitate mitigation in conjunction with srnall-scale developments, which generally lack the expertise and, infrastructure

necessary to undertake independent rnitigation efforts (Ashe 1982).

Because the nitigation has already t,aken place, the actual cost of providing resources has been established; thus, mitigation banking I is an ideal framework for utilizing monetary payrnents (see section 2.2.4) . I Although the FwS Mitigation Policy encourag'es rnitigation banking, its actual application is controversiar. There are a I number of practical problems to be solved,, includ.ing the logistical I problems of cataloging and acquiring potential nitigation sites. Mitigation banking has not been used extensively in california. I Because this report is evaluating rnitigation approaches that can be used specifical.ly at soNGS, mit,igation banking per se is not t applicable, since there is only one development project involved. I However, if an appropriate rnitigation bank did, exist, the impacts frorn SONGScould be applied to it. I t I I I I Mitigation Technigues 4g I 2.4 Loss prevention Loss prevention techniqrres avoid, the unnecessary loss of I resources. In general, loss prevention is the most desirable form of nitigation; it insures maximal protection of the environment,

I and' minimizes the need for cornpensation. Ideally, technigues to I prevent, Iosses have been considered and inplemented d.uring project planning and construction. However, planning d.uring project I deveropment is not possible at this tine for soNGS, so that any loss-avoidance measures would have to be irnpremented. after I construction. The Coastal Cornmission has recognized, that reguiring design changes such as cooling'towers, extending the d,iffusers I hundreds of feet or converting the d.ischarges to single point I discharges could cost hundreds of millions of d.ol1ars (Fischer ].eTe) . I In this section, I have identified, some possible techniques for prevent,ing resource losses at soNGS. For most of these

I techniques, procedures for implernentation, including the effect,ive- I ness of each technj.que, have not been worked out in detail, sj-nce these would j.nvolved engineering aspects that, are beyond the scope I of this report. Furthermore, changes in the structure of.the cooling systern at SONGScould result in a whole new set of effects I on species. In general, the consequences of such changes are not I known; the effects could be either beneficial or ad,verse for any particular species. I I I t Mitigation Techniques 49 I .: The locations of the intake and discharge systems at SONGS, I which are discussed in the following sections, are presented, in I Figure 3. t 2.4.1 fntake rn the process of acquiring water for cooling, a number of I different organisms are taken into the prant,, srnarl organisms sinply pass through the plant; losses to these organisrns result

I from physical damage incurred during transit and, pred,ation by the t fouling organisms that occur in the cooring system. Larger organisms, prirnarily fish, may be inpinged, on the travelling I screens. I 2.4.1.1 Fish Return Svstem The Fish Return System (FRs) was d,esigned. to minimize 1osses I due to the irnpingernent of f ish on the travelling screens. I Entrapped fish are diverted into quiet areas of screenwell forebays before they rehch the screens (Figure 4). The d.iverted, fish are I periodically collected by lift-bucket from these quiet areas and moved that move to a conduit through which they can return to the I ocean. I A number of studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the FRS. Under fu1I-flow condit,ions, the FRS returns an estimated. 97? I (by number) and 96? (by weight) of the entrapped fish back to the ocean (DeMartini 1985). The FRS is somewhat selective in which I fish are diverted, both by species and size. For exampre, white I I I Mitigation Techniques 50 I :_ seaperch, plainfin nidshiprnan and giant kelpfish were more numerous I in inpingement samples than in diversion samples, while topsmelt, yellowfin croaker, sargo and zebraperch were reratj-very more t numerous in diversion samples. The FRS d.iverts d.isproportionately I more large individ.uars of many smalr-bodied species that are frequently entrapped at the intakes. rt appears that the young-of- I year of many species, including gueenfish, are particularly suscep- tible to irnpingernent. In contrast, the ad,ults of smal1 species, €rs I well as the larger juveniles and adults of large, robust, and strong-swimrning species, are successfully d.iverted,.

I Although the diversion efficiency of the FRS is generally I high, the survival of the d,iverted, fish has not, yet been tested.. survival could be 1ow because of physical stress or pred,ation I following discharge. preliminary analyses suggest that, in the absence of predation, survival for at least the first 9G hours I after discrr-arge nay be high. A more cornplete study of survival T after discharge is currently being completed.. I 2.4.1.2 Relocate Tntake RelocatinE the intakes to deeper water could change the I effects of soNGS in two ways. First, by taking in less turbid. I water offshore, water turbidity near the discharges night be reduced, thus lowering irnpact,s on the ketp bed. second, by taking I in water at a dj.fferent depth, a different rnix of fish species night be impinged and a d,j.fferent rnix of plankton, both I ichthyoplankton and zooplankton, rnight be entrained,. rt is I I Mitigation Techniques 51 possible that irnpingenent and entrainment from deeper intakes would. result in lower inpacts than from the present location; it is aLso possible that the impacts would, be greater.

Moving the intakes to deeper water rnight bring up cooler, more nutrient-rich water. Increased nutrients rnight increase the productivity of the kelp bed. Cooler water could mean that a lower flow rate through the cooling system would, be necessary. Both of these consequences would be beneficial. on the other hand, locating intakes in deeper water rnight reguire more powerful pumps, so there may be considerations of design constraints.

The MRCbriefly considered the consequences of extending the intakes out to deeper water (t{Rc 19Bo). The prelininary conclusions were that (1) rnuch of the turbidity will result from secondary entrainment by discharged water, so there would. be 1ittle to gain from moving the intakes, and (2) moving the intakes might reduce fodder fish kilrs, but rnight also kirl more sport and, commercial fish

2.4.1.3 Velocitv Cap

The intakes at SONGSUnits 2 and, 3 have been redesigned to include a velocity cap in an effort to red.uce the entrapment of fish. Velocity caps are designed to reduce entrapment by prod,ucing a horizontal flow field rather than a vertical flow field at the entrance to the intake tower (Figure 5). The traccelerating flowrr velocity cap at SONGSwas designed to provid,e fish with more tirne to sense the horizontally flowing intake current. I t'titigation Technigues 52 I rn the past, there has been some cont,roversy over the I effectiveness of a velocity cap because of the absence of vali4 field demonstrations (Thornaset a1. tggo). stupka and sharma I (J.977) suggested that the velocity cap at SONGs"may actually serve I to enhance the entraprnent of fish.tt However, studies by Thomas et aI. (1980) suggest that the velocity cap d.esign does reduce the I vulnerability of species to entraprnent. Thornas et aI. also report temporal variation in the effect,iveness of the velocity cap:

I entraprnent without the velocity cap was generally an order of I magnitude greater than with the velocity cap during d,aylight hours, whereas without-cap entrapment was only 2 to 3 tirnes greater at I night. Ent,rapment with the velocity cap was lower for rnost species, although entrapment of srnall white surfperch was similar t during with-cap and, wj.thout-cap operations. Thomas et ar. (1980) I conclude that their study rrdemonstrated, that in spite of the large amount of natural variability in fish vulnerability to entrapment, I the addition of velocity caps to the intake tower d.esign represents an effective treatment for rninimizing fish losses.rr t 2.4.2 Discharcre

I The discharge of cooling water frorn SoNcs Units 2 and, 3 could I have an effect on the surrounding biota in two ways. r,irst, the discharged water could replace the ambient water, thereby changing I the physical or chemj.cal characteristics of the water. For example, the discharged water could be more turbid than the arnbient I water, thus reducing light penetration or j.ncreasing sedimentat,ion. I I Mitigation Techniques 53 :-

Second, the movement of the d,ischarged water could, carry with it

marine organisms. This effect could be manifested through increased mortality of organisms due to physical stress t ot through displacement from their natural habitat.

2.4.2.1 Alter Existinq Discharqe Svstem

The simplest way to reduce the effects of the rnulti-port

diffusers might be to alter the existing systern. Altering the port angres night change some of the plume characterist,icst at present,

the diffuser jets are pointed. offshore (2Oo angle upward,s an4 70 angle outwards) fron the line of the diffuser, in ord.er to generate an offshore movernent,of discharged. and entrained. water. rt is possible that a different port angle would have a reduced effect on the marine biota.

2.4.2 .2 Redesign Discharcre

Much of the impacts of the discharge system at SONGSresults from its multi-port d,esign. Heated, water from units 2 and 3 is discharged through long diffuser tubes, with each unit having its own diffuser with 53 ports. The d,ischarge is initially diluted about tenfold with entrained, water passing the. diffusers.. The diffuser for Unit 2 extends from 1700 to 24so m offshore, while that for unit 3 extends from 980 to 1740 rn (Figure 3). rn cont,rast, the di.scharge system for unit 1 consists of one large discharge port located 660 m from shore. Although the diffusers were designed to satisfy therrnal reElirernents for the discharge, I Mitigation Techniques 54 I :_ the MRC (1980) has speculated that a single-port discharge rnight be

I Iess damaging to the marine biota. Although water discharged from t a single port rnight result in higher surface water ternperatures, the DIRC suggested that this rnight be ress damaging than the I increased turbidity and entrainment resulting from the multi-port diffusers, although no d,etailed. studies of the problem were I conducted. The MRC decided in 1980 that there was not sufficient evidence of adverse effects at that time to reconmend a change in

I the discharge systern, includ,ing a change to a single-port I discharge; however, this arteration remains a possibirity. I 2.4.2.3 Relocate Discharge units 2 and 3 presently discharge wat,er over depths of 9.6 m

I to r4.9 mi furthermore, the diffusers are ad.jacent to the san I onofre Kelp (soK) bed. rf the diffusers were moved. closer to shore, into shallower water, or farther offshore, into deeper I water, the discharged water night have less inpact on the marine biota. Removing the discharge from the vicinity of soK would, I likely lessen, and rnight erininate, any detrimental effects of I SONGS on SoK. By locating the discharge in deeper water, it rnight be possible to utilize a different d,ischarge d.esign, yet still meet I state thennal standards. Relocat,ing the discharge to deeper water farther offshore would change the characteristics of the d.ischarge I plume, with possibly beneficial effects on the rnort,ality of I organisms due to entrainment with discharged, water. A different I I Mitigat,ion Techniques 55

set of benthic organisms might be influenced by a d.eeper d.ischarge, with unknown consecruences.

2.4.3 Cooling Towers

By drastically reducing the volume of water utilize4 by the plant, cooring towers wourd reduce nearly every irnpact to the marine biota that is expected, to result from the operation of soNGS. However' cooling towers can also have significant environ- rnental impactsr orl the terrestrial environment through d.eposition of salt from drift, and on water quarity by the ad.dition of biocides and corrosion-inhibiting chemicals to the cooling water (Edrnondset aI. 197s, Taylor et ar. Lg7s, Glasstone and Jord,an le80).

Because most, of the effects of SONGSare a direct result of the operation of the once-through cooling system, red.ucing the arnount of time the plant operates would reduce many inpacts. rf curtailing plant operations at a specific, critical time results in a disproportionate reduction in impacts, then restricting plant operations during the critical period. rnight be a worthwhile nitigation technique to consider.

Such a situation has been identified for striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the Hudson River estuary. The Hudson Rj.ver estuary provides spawning and nursery habitat for the striped, bassr dr anadromous fish that is higbly valued in the sport and commercial Mitigation Techniques 56 fj-sheries. A controversy developed around the ef fects of Hud.son River pohrer plants on the striped bass population. The rnajor irnpact on the striped. bass populat,ion came from entrainment of eggs and larvae, and the only effective way to reduce entrainment is to reduce the amount of water withdravm by the p1ant. Three alterna- tives were identified for reducing the amount of water withdrawn:

1) build cooling towers; 2) red,uce the water flow and increase the temperature of the discharged watert and 3) shut, d,own generating units when ent,rainable organisms are abund,ant (Barnthouse et aI.

1984). The utilities on the Hud.sonRiver agreed. to implenent flow reductions and scheduled shutdowns. Data on the temporal abundance patterns of the different life stages of the striped bass were combined with infonnation on the life stages that accounted, for nost of the inpact of entrainrnent to determine when mitigation efforts should be focused.

Reduced water flow has the potential for red.ucing entrapment, at SONGS. Although not as effect,ive as the velocity cdp, Thomas et aI. (1980) found that reduced flow red,uced.the vulnerability of fish to entrapment

Ternporal restriction of operation of SONGSis possible, but would be rnost effective if there was seasonal variation in the risk to a species. For many specj-es at san onofre, this is either unlikely or there is too little infonnation to know. DeMartini (1985, Appendix K) estimates the monthly loss of many fish species between May 1983 and Decernber 1984; although there is a great d,ea1 I Mitigation Techniqr.les 57 I of monthly variation, there do not appear to be crear seasonal I trends. I At san onofre, there is concern over the effects of the I discharge plume as werr as entrainment and impingement. of I particular concern is the effect of the discharge plume on the recruitment and survival of kelp in the San Onofre Kelp bed. Kelp I recruitment depends on the occurrence of appropriate environmental conditions. Between LgTg and 1994, recruitment at san onofre

I occurred during upwelling events that coincided with period,s when I irradiance levels were above the threshold, required. for gametogenesis (Dean et aI. 1986). All recruitment events occurred. I during these 'trecruitment wind,owsr, although not all wind,ows produced recruitnent. Dean et aI. (1986) have proposed, that these rrwindowsrr I are relatively infreguent, and that increased turbidity from the SoNGSdischarge may reduce the frequency or likelihood, of I successful kelp recruitment. I If kelp recruitment is more likely during some portion of the year, it is possible that restriction of soNcs operations, particu- I lar1y by curt,ailing operations, could arreviate the problems of water turbidity and allow normal recruitment events to occur. I Anderson and North (L967) noted that, altrr'ough spores are produced I throughout the year by Macrocystis in Southern California, there are peaks of production in late spring/ear1y sunmer and early fall. I At the San Onofre and San Mateo kelp beds, recruj.tment has indeed been seasonal, occurring in summer Lg7g, spring rg7g, summer-Fall

I 1981' summer 1983 and spring 1984 (Dean et al. 1986). Because the I I Mitigation Technigues 59

conditions necessary for kerp recruitment may only occur 3 to 4 weeks per year, and appear to be generally seasonal, restricting the operation of soNGS during these period,s rnight red.uce the impacts on the kelp bed. However, the unpred,ictable tining of the recruitment windows within the general recruitment season will greatly lirnit the usefulness of this technicrue.

2.5 Summarvand Discussion

A wide variety of d,ifferent technigues courd be used. to nitigate the possible effects of SONGS(Table 5). In-kind. replace- ment of lost resources rnight be accomplished by enhancing existing kelp beds, creating new kelp beds, constructing artificial reefs, constructing fish hatcheries, restoring fish nursery habitats, constructing invert,ebrate hatcheries, and, manipulat,ing natural habitats. out-of-kind substitution for lost resources cou1d, be accomplished by any of the in-kind. techniques; in addition, habitat restoration or enhancement (particularly for wetland. habitats), preservation of coastal lands, information acguisitj-on, monetary paYnent and water quality irnprovement could be used, for out-of-kind. compensation. Many of these compensation techni.ques, particularly the const,ruction of artificial reefs, the restoration or enhance- ment of habitats, and rnonetary payments, could be used, in a rnitiga- tion banking frarnework. The actual loss of resources at SONGS night, be ninirnized by relocating the intakes, altering or relocat- ingr the discharge systern, building cooling towers r ot restricting the water flow rate or periods of operation of SoNGSi the ful1 Mitigation Techniques 59

consequences of most of these possible changes have not been evaluated in detail.

Each of the technigues presented in this chapter cou1d. serve

as a technigue for mitigating the effects of soNcs. rt is difficult to choose among these techniques because there are many

factors influencing such a decision, and rnost of these factors are not known at this tirne. Thus, it is not possible to exclud,e most techniques from consid,eration. However, it is possible to suggest the techniques that seem best suited to the situation at SONGS, given our present und.erstanding. These preferred, teehnigues include:

1. Creat,e a kelp bed.

2. Construct an artificial reef (for fish). 3. Habitat restoration or enhancernent. 4. Information acquisition (in conjunction with other mitigation actions, particularly

for hard-to-nitigate species) . 5. Acquisition of coastal land.

The first two of these techniques represent in-kind replace- ment for resource losses. fn-kind replacernent of resources is the most preferred method of compensation, so it should be the method used for the najority of the resources and/or the most valuable resources. There are a number of problens associated with trying to apply in-kind techniques (Tab1e 5). Two techniques seem particularly promising, however. rn spite of the failure of most Mitigation Techniques 60

previous attempts to create a kelp bed,, this technigue seems to be

worth pursuing. KeIp beds are clearly an important habitat type in

Southern California, and all government agencies seem to d.esire in-

kind replacement of this habitat (see Append,ix 3). There are some

technical details to be resolved before this techniqr-re is

implemented, however. A second important marine resource, fish,

night also be replaced. by an in-kind. technique. A major irnpediment

to utilizing artificial reefs as mitigation for the 1oss of fish

resources is the lack of information about their function and, their

relationship to natural reefs. In fact, FWS has rejected several

recent reguests to use artificial reefs as rnitigation because of

the lack of infornation about them (J. Fancher, personal communication).

Although in-kind replacement is the most preferred rnitigation technigue, it is not feasible to exactly replace all the resources that rnight be impacted by SONGS. Furthermore, as mentioned, above, the techniqr:es for kelp bed creation are not well-establishe6, and there is a serious lack of pertinent information about the value of an artificial reef. ff future information ind,icates that these in- kind techniques are not adeguate or feasible for achieving 1Oo? compensation, out-of-kind technigues would have to be consid.ered..

The three out-of-kind techniques listed above appear to be the best and most appropriate for soNGS. Habitat restoration or enhancement has previously been used extensively for resource compensation. The FWS and other agencies have experience with wetland restoration, so some of the technical problems have been Mitigation Techniques 61

resorved. Although sorne problems stirr rernain, including the difficurty of determining adeguate compensation, habitat restoration seems likely to be considered the best out-of-kind,

technique available (see Appendix 3). The two remaining technigues listed above, information acguisition and, coastal preservation, might not be considered appropriate rnitigation under some circumstances (Ashe 1982). However, under the proper conditions

both of these technigues could enhance the long-t,erm biological an4 habitat resource values in Southern California.

The prevention of losses is generalry the most favored.

technigue for mitigation. In the situation at SoNGS, however, loss prevention techniques cannot be integrated. into project planning or construction. The implernentation after construction of technigues

involving structural changes would involve unknowns in the areas of engineering, biologicar effects, and econornics. At present, the MRC doesnrt know much about, how structural changes would, affect any of these areas. rf the MRCmakes the d,ecision to consider nitigation techniques involving structurar changes, much more detailed studies will need to be made to evaluate the techniques.

There are some loss prevention technigues that d.o not, involve

structural changes. Because most of the ef fect,s of SONGS.result, from the operation of the once-through cooling systern, restricting the flow of water through the cooling system would reduce any inpacts. Shutting down operations during seasons of high potential

inpact might also be effective at, soNGS. However, other tlpes of nitigation would seem to be better than seasonal restriction of Mitigation Techniques 62

operation. This technique is only useful if the species at risk is a highly valued resource, and a predictable period of high risk can be avoided by restricted operations. For the major resources at risk at soNGS, it is not clear that predictabre periods of high risk occur. Furthermore, the cost, of this rnitigation is on-going;

it seems likely that an in-kind, replacement of resources wou1d.be more cost'-effective, particularly if it cou1d be accomplished, as a one-t,ime expense.

Regardless of the technique(s) chosen for rnitigation, it is important that some post-implementation evaluation be cond.uct,ed. Although evaluation of the success of nitigation is frequently associated with mitigative actions, there are no establj.shed

guidelines for evaluating a technique, and, the tine-span or effort allotted for evaluation is often inad.equate. When the evaluation of a mitigative technique is inad,eguate, much valuable inforrnation that could be used for future applications of the technigue is lost. The need for information about different mitigation techniques is particularry critical along the open coast, where there are very few previous applications to use for gui.d.ance. r strongly suggest that, regardless of the technique(s) chosen, the MRC recomrnend that appropriate evaluative stud,ies be conducted.. CHAPTER3

RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FUTURESTUDIES

The many unknowns associated. with some of the technigues discussed in this report make it difficult, and perhaps unwise, to make decisions regarding their use for rnitigation based, on the current state of our knowledge. rn this chapter, r recommend, studies that r think wirr go a long way towards removing the uncertainty involved with utilizing these method,s in rnitigation.

The MRC cannot study every aspect of each of the techniques listed. in this report. Thus, r have focused. on the few technigues for which MRC studies could have the greatest irnpact. Furthermore, this chapter deals pri.narily with in-kind. nitigative measures, since these are generarly consid,ered, to be the most preferred. method of compensation.

The information needed to d.etennine the feasibility of these rnitigation techniques can be classified into three categories.

First, informat,ion regarding the acceptability of using a particular technique for nitigation must be obtained. Although some of the techniques discussed could be implementedr.it.is not clear that they would be worth pursuing, since they rnight not work. For example, severar techniques exist for providing in-kind compensation for possible losses of fish at SONGS,including a fish hatchery and restoration of nursery habitats; but what would be gained if hatchery-reared fish never successfully recruit into the Recommendations 64 ,: - adult population? Second, for some technigues the procedures for implementing the techniques need, to be refined,. This information will help deterrnine how the techniques would be implemented. For example, it would be valuable to know the best method for initiat- ing a kelp bed. Finally, we need inforrnation for evatuating the success of a particular technigue. For exampler w€ need to know how productive an artificial reef is in ord,er to know its nitigative value, and how rarge to construct one to achieve a particular value.

In the following discussion, f outline reconmend,ed. studies that will assess the feasibility of selected rnitigation techniques.

(1) Study the feasibilitv of creatinq kelp beds

The most prornising method for compensating for the loss of kelp bed resources is to establish a new kelp bed,. Efforts to establish self-sustaining kelp beds on art,ificial substrates have generally failed. In particular, kelp has not become established, on the recent Pendleton Artificial Reef in spite of nurnerous trans- plant efforts. Consideration of previous attenpts to establish kerp suggests that inappropriate environmental conditions (including the physico-chernical and biotic environment) and trans- plant technigues have contributed to these failures. I recommend, that the MRC study these two aspects of establishing kelp beds.

(a) Technicrues for establishing kelp Recommendations 65

Much work has been done to develop methods for transplanting

adult and juvenj.le Macrocystis (see Appendix 5). rt seems 1ike1y

that no further work on these methods is necessary. However,

alternative methods for establishing kelp rnight be more efficient,

cost-effectiver oE successful. For example, outplants of micro-

sporophytes or gametophytes rnight work wel1. Dean has been using

out'plants of garnetophytes and sporophytes in the San onofre area,

and has a well-established protocol (see Dean L986). The MRC could

compare alternative techniques to determine the optimal method,, in

terms of success and cost-effectiveness, for establishing kelp.

I reconmend that the different, techniques for establishing

kelp be evaluated by a field experiment near San onofre. Different

techniques could be employed in repricate prots, with appropriate

controls for natural recruitment of ke1p. Techniques to consider

include the transplant of ad.ults, transplant of juveniles, outplant

of microsporophytes, outplant of garnetophytes, and transplant of

fert'ile sporophylls. The stud.y sit,e should provid,e a large expanse

of homogeneous substrate; Barn Kelp wou1d, be id,eal, since stable

kerp beds have occurred, there in the past,, but there has been

virtually no natural recruitment of kelp there in the past few years

The primary emphasis of this field experiment should be the

evaluatj.on of different techniques. However, it has been suggested that some seasons night be better for establishing kelp than others. Thus, the experiment could be repeated, at several Recommendations 66

different times of the year to investigate the influence of the seasons.

(b) Location and substrate for establishing kelp

Providing an appropriate substrate in the proper location will

undoubtedly be vital for the successful establishnent, of a self-

sustaining kelp bed. previous attempts at establishing kelp on

artificial substrates in southern california have met with failure

more often than success. Two aspects of the locations of these

artificial reefs rnay have contributed. to their failure. First, the physico-chemical cond.itions may not have favored the growth or recruitrnent of Macrocvstis. For example, some reefs were placed in water that was too deep or too turbid for adeguate light penetration (Arnbrose 1985) . Second, the biotic environrnent may not have been favorabre. rn particurar, the isolated, patches of transplanted kelp may have attracted an abundance of herbivorous fish. In addition, isolat,ing the artificial reefs probably red.uced the chances of'natural recruitment by kelp, since kelp recruitment is generally vefy 1oca1 (And,erson and North L966). Both of these problems with location could be overcome by establishing new kelp beds adjacent to established kelp bed,s

A field experiment, designed to evaluate the potential of different locations would, aid the planning of rnitigation involving the estabrishrnent, of a kelp bed. since nearly all previous artificial reefs have been established in the rniddle of sand flats,

I reconmend that the MRC undertake a smaIl, directed experiment Recommendations 67

wit'h only two locations tested.: one in the rnid.dle of the sand, and

one adjacent to an established. kelp bed, such as san Mateo Kelp

Bed- sna1l replicate reefs should be established, at similar d.epths

and exposures. Since the object would be to examine the effect of

location on the growth and survival of ke1p, the most promj.sing

technique or group of technigues should, be used t,o establish kelp

on the reefs. Control reefs at both locations would ind.icate the extent of natural recruitment of ke1n.

(2) studr the production of fi=h on artificial reefs

An artificial reef is the most pronising in-kind, technigue for

nitigating the loss of fish. Much need,s to be known about

artificial reefs before their fulI potential can be realize4 in

mitigation, but, more irnportantly, our current state of knowledge

actually linits the application of artificial reefs in rnitigation.

Among the most important informat,ion to gather is the relationship

between the production of fish on natural and artificial reefsi

this infonnation is necessary to d,etermine how extensive an

artificial reef must be to provid,e loo? compensation.

(a) Sunrev natural and artificial reefs

one approach to comparing natural and artificial reefs is to sulirtey existing reefs. The sur:vey should collect information about fish recruitment and, abundances (bionass), and thus should be tined to coincide with the major recruitnent period,s in spring and fal1. All Southern California artificial reefs should, be considered as Recommendations 58

candidates for study, as well as all other man-made structures,

such as breakwaters. The choice of artificial reefs is critical;

only the most promising artificial reefs should be chosen for the

survey. The choice of natural reefs for comparison is egually

critical, since they shourd be as sinirar as possible to the

artificial reefs. There are two possible approaches to a linited,

sullvey of this kind. First, a large nurnber of d,ifferent, reefs can

be surveyed infrequently. This approach has been taken by Jake

Patton, who has surveyed 89 natural reefs (see patton 1985).

second, a few reefs can be studied more thoroughry; this approach

is more likely to give insight into the d,ynanical processes that

occur on the reefs. A combination of the two approaches might

provide the most infonnation. The survey cou1d, also evaluate the

influence of design features of the artificial reefs and compare

the a1gal and invertebrate biotas of artificial and natural reefs.

(b) Studies on pendleton Artificial Reef

Pendleton Artificial Reef is one of the best d,ocumented, artificial reefs in the worrd,. The MRChas alread.y cond.ucted. intensive studies of PAR, but these were not d.irected specifically at the fish production guestion, and PAR has had, several more years to develop since the conclusion of those studies. DeMartini (personal communication) has suggested that there may be feasible techniques for measuring fish prod,uction on pAR. At the very

least, f recomrnend continuing to rneasure fish recruitment on pAR, since guantitative recruitment data have been collected on few Recommendations 69

artificiar reefs. rn addj-tion, the MRC rnight want to consid.er

studying the extent of the influence of PAR, i.e. how far out onto

the sand in the fish assemblage d.ifferent due to pAR.

(c) Experimental artificial reefs

Many of the questions regarding artificial reefs cou1d be answered with large-scale experimental reefs. A project of this magnitude is beyond the time and budget available to the t{Rc, and in the short terrn may not be very inforrnative for fish prod,uction.

on the other hand, it would provide infonnation about fish and kelp recruitment, which would, be useful for evaluating the feasibility of using artificial reefs as rnitigative technigues. Because the DFG is pranning to estabrish a large number of reefs along the southern carifornia coast, r propose that the MRCconsid.er collaborat,ing with DFG on the planning, and, possibry folIow-up studies, of these reefs. A well-designed experiment could provid,e valuable inforrnation within the next few years, at a rninirnal cost to the !{RC.

(3) Detennine critical life stases of fish snecies at risk-

Two possible techniques of in-kind compensation for losses of fi.sh, a fish hatchery and restori.ng a nursery habitat, involve the early life stages of fish. Before these technigues can be recornmendedfor use in rnitigation, however, a great deal of inforrnation about the life history of the target species is necessary, and potential life-history bottlenecks must be identi- Recommendations - 7O

fiedr so that we can be reasonably certain that they wirl be

effective in enhancing fish stocks. In ad,d,itionr w€ should know

which species, out of all candidate species, are rnost, likely to

respond to these nitigation measures. (The candidate species could

include the species at risk at SONGSas well as any other species

that night be considered for out-of-kind compensation, such as black sea bass.)

The initial study of the critical life stages of the cand.id,ate

species could be accomplished by a d,etailed literature revi.ew and

analysis. All available information from published. sources and,

locaI experts shourd be gathered to d.etermine which species, if

dDY, are Iikely to benefit from the possible rnitigation measures.

Once this stage has been reached, mod.eling of the most promising

species rnight prove va1uable.

If the study of critical life stages j-ndicates that a hatchery might be appropriate for particular species, a technicar and, economic feasibility study should be performed.. (Note: the white sea bass hatchery rnight be in a position to provid,e good, economic data by the end of the year. ) current d,ata suggesL that the technieal problems associated, with rearing many marine fish species can be solved fairty readily; before any decision regarding using hatcheries for mitigation would have to be made, more information will be avairabre from the established hat,chery programs in

California. Recommendations 7L

Previous recornmendations to the MRCregarding mitiqation

As noted in the Preface to this report, the MRC has conducted. a number of other studies dealing with rnitigation. Reports for four of these studies have contained recommendations regarding

nitigation. This section provid.es a brief sunmary of these previous reconmendations to the MRC; for complete coverage of the reconmendations, the original report should, be consulted.

A11 of the reports containing recornmendations for rnitigation have emphasized artificiar reefs. A1r previous stud,ies have

reconmended that the MRCdefine its mitigat,ion object,ive (Tab1e 6)t the authors have been particularly concerned with the 1evel of invorvement of the I{RC. sheehy (1981) suggest,ed.that the MRC

consider transferring Japanese art,ificial reef technology for use in nitigation projects in carifornia. Thum et al. (1993), in their thorough review of mitigation policy, reconmend.ed.that the t{RC take Lg policy st,ances regarding rnitigation. Thum et ar. (19g3) also reconmended that the l{RC study the d,esign and placement, of artifi- cial reefs, kelp production, and, ways of manipulating the d,evelop- ment of an artificial reef. LOSL (1983) recommend.edthat the I,IRC study nani.pulation techniques for artificial reefsr plus continue studying pAR

These previous recommendations cover a range of actions. All reports reconmended that the MRC actively pursue rnitigation. The reports also suggested field work that would help resolve some of Recornmendations 72

the guestions regarding the feasibility of different technigues for nitigating the effects of SONGS.

A final regem:nendation

A significant obstacle to evaluating possible rnitigation techniques in the marine environment is the rack of forrow-up

studies for technigues that have been implemented. A good. local example is the artificial reef program in Southern California.

Except for studies conducted more than two decades ago, and, those

performed by the MRCor funded by ScE, none of the artificial reefs constructed in Southern California has been thoroughly evaluated. Yet without a crj.tical evaluation of a technieu€r no progress can be made towards more effective implementation in the future.

Furthermore, without follow-up studies the successfulness of a

particular technique cannot be d.etermined. Follow-up studies are particularly important in a situation such as the open coast, where few rnitigation techniques have been implement,ed previously.

The MRC sfrould recognize the irnportance of evaluating any rnitigation technique that night be irnplenented,. I recommend that the MRC work to develop methods of evaluating any technique that rnay be considered for rnitigating effects of soNcs LITERATURE CITED

Allen, L.e., c.P. onuf and M.s. Love. 1994. Resurts of a pilot study on the distribution and, abundance of young-of-year

California halibut in the vicinities of Alarnitos Bay and, San Onofre-Oceanside, May-June, 1984. Report to the Marine Review Committee.

A1len, L.c., R.L. scott and R.M. Murotake. L9g5. Recruitment,

distribution and diet, of young-of-the-year California halibut in the vicinity of Alanitos Bay-Long Beach Harbor, California, 1983-1985. Paper presented at Western Society of Naturalists meeting, December 19gS.

Ambrose, R.F. L985. Artificial Reefs. vol. r. Review and Evaruation. Report to the Marine Review cornmittee.

Anderson, E.K. and w.J. North. 1966. rn situ stud,ies of spore production and dispersal in the giant ke1p, Macrocystis.

Proceedings of the Fifth International Seaweed,Syrnposium: 73- 85.

Anderson, E.K. and w.J. North. 1967. zoospore release rates j.n giant kelp, Macrocvstis. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 65: 223-232.

Amour, c.L., R.J. Fisher and J.w. Terrerl. 1994. comparison of

the use of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and the rnstream Flow rncremental Methodology (rrrM) in aquatic

analyses. western Energy and Land use Team, Division of Literature Cited - 74

Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Senrice Report FWS/OBS- 84.

Ashe, D.M. L982. Fish and Wildlife mitigation: description and analysis of estuarine applicat,ions. Coast,al Zone Management Journal 10: 1-52.

Barnhart, R. and M. Boyd. 1994. salt marsh restoratj.on: An ecological evaluation of an estuarine rnitigation project.

california sea Grant Biennial Report, Report No. R-csccp-g13: 46-52.

Barnthouse, L.w., J. Borernan,s.w. christensen, c.p. Good,year,w. van winkre and D.s. Vaughan. 1994. population Biorogy in the courtroom: The Hudson River Controversy. BioScience 342 ]4- 19.

Bence, J. 1985. A quantitative analysis of metal concentrations in sediments from beaches near SONGS. Report to the Marine Review Committee. 198 pp.

Breedveld, J.F. van. r97s. Transpranting of seagrass with emphasis on the importance of substrate. Florida Marine Research Publication 17: !-26.

California Coastal Commission. 1981. Statewide interpretive guideline for wetlands and other wet environrnentally sensitive habitat areas. Adopted February 4, 1981. California Coastal zone Consenration Commission. Lg7s. California Coastal Plan. Sacramento, California. I I Literature Cited - 75 I carr, M. 1985. Age related differences in habitat affinity I of the I T kelp bass, Paralabrax clathratus. Paper presented at Western Society of Naturalists rneeting, December 1995.

I Chew, K.K. 1984. Recent advances in the cultivation of molluscs I in the Pacific United I States and Canad.a. Aguaculture 39: 69- 81. I I I churchirl, c.A., A.E. cok and M.r. Riner. rg7g. stabilization of subt'idal sediments by the transplantation of the seagrass

I zostera marina L. New york sea Grant rnstitute, Arbany, N.y. t NYSSGP-RS-78-15 . Dayton, P.K.' v. currie, T. Gerrod.ette, B.D. Kelrer, R. Rosenthal I and D.V- Tresca. 1984. Patch dynamics and stability of some California kelp communities. Ecological Monographys 54z 253- I 289. Dean, T.A. 1986. UCSBKelp Ecology Project Semiannual Report for I the Period 1 June r9B5 to 31 Decernber 1985. Report to the I Marine Review Cornmittee. DeMartini, E.E. 1985. April 1985 Year-End, Report of the UCSBFish I Project. Report to the Marine Review cornrnittee. Dixon, J., s.c. schroeter and, T. Dean. 1995. Recent changes in I kelp populations in the vicinity of San onofre and, possible I impacts of SoNGSUnits 2 and 3. Report to the Marine Review Cornrnittee. t Ebert, E.E. and J.L. Houk. 1984. Elernents and innovations in the cultivation of red, abalone Haliotis rufescens. Aquaculature I 39: 375-392. t t I Literature Cited - 76 I Edmonds, P.R., H.K. Roffman and R.c. Maxwell . rg7s. some I terrestrial considerations associated with cooling-tower systems for erectric power generat,ion. rn: cooling Tower

I Environment - 1974. u.s. Energy Research and, Development I Administration, ERDA Symposium Seriesi CONF-7403O2. pp. 393- 407. I El1is, R.J. and w.J. McNeil . Lg7g. Possible manag:ement,proced.ures for increasing production of sockeye salmon smolts in the t Naknek River system, Bristor Bay, Alaska. NOAA Technical

Report, National Marine Fisheries Service, Special Scientific t - Report Fisheries, No. 733. 9 pp. t Engle, J.M. 1979. Ecology and growth of juvenile California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus. Ph.D. Dissertation, University t of Southern Californi.a. Fischer, M.L. r979. staff reconmendations on rad,iological

I discharge monitoring and conditj.ons to be add.ed to permit A I L53-73 for the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. Memo to the state conmissioners, Nov. 9, L979, carifornia coastal I Commission. Fonseca, M.s., w.J. Kenworthy, ;r. Homziak and G.w. Thayer. rg7g.

I Transplanting of eelgrass and shoalgrass as a potential means I of nitigating a recent loss of habitat. proceedj.ngs of the Sixth Annua1 Conference on the Restoration and, Creation of I I{etlands: 279-326. Gates, S. ]982. An inventory of California coastal wetlands with

I a potentiar for restoration and enhancement. rn: Josselyn, I I Literature Cited - 77

M., ed. Wetland restoration and enhancement in California.

Workshop Proceedings, California Sea Grant Collect prograrn

Publication, Report No. T-CSGCP-OO7. pp. 1t-19.

Glasstone, s. and w.H. Jordan. 1990. Nucrear power and, its

environmental effects. American Nuclear society, La Grange Park, Illinois. 395 pp.

Goforth, H.w. and T.J. peeling. Lg7g. rntertidal and subtidal

eelgrass (Zostera rnarina L. ) transplant studies in San Diego

Bay, California. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on

the Restoration and creation of wetland,s: 324-3s6.

Gosselink, J.G., E.p. odum and R.M. pope. Lg74. The varue of the

tidal marsh. Louisiana State University Publicat,ion LSU-SG-74- 03.

Hassler, T'J. 1984. Artificial irnprinting of chinook and coho

salmon in a multispecies hatchery. california sea Grant

Biennial Report, Report No. R-CSGCP-OI3: t81-Lg4.

Healey, M.c. 1980. The ecology of juvenile salmon in Georgia

Strait, British Colurnbia. In: McNeil, w.J. and D.c.

Hirnsworth, Eds. Sahnonid Ecosystems of the North pacific.

Oregon State University press. pp. 2O3-ZZ7.

Josselyn, M. and J. Buchholz. rgg2. summary of past wetlland

restoration projects in california. rn: Josselyn, M., ed.

Wetland restoration and enhancement in California. Workshop

Proceedings, California Sea crant Collect, Prograrn publj.cation,

Report No. T-CSGCP-OO7. ltO pp. I Lit,erature Cited - 78 I Leighton, D.L, M.J. Byhower, J.c. Ke11y, G.N. Hooker and, D.E.

I Morse. 1981. Acceleration of development and growth in young green abalone (Haliotis fulgens) using warmed effruent

I seawater. Journal of the World Mariculture Society 12: 170- I 180. Leighton, D.L. and c.F. phleger. 1994. Artificial control of I garnetogenesis, spawning', and larval production in the purple- Hinge Rock scarlop. california sea crant Biennial Report,

I Report No. R-CSGCP-O}3: 92-93. I Lipton, D., H. Kumpf , T. Blahm, D. Huppert and c. sind,errnann. L984. The problem of evaluating rnarine and estuarine habitat. I Final Report of the Habitat Evaluation Working Group, National Marine Fisheries Service. t Lockheed ocean science Laboratories (LosL). 1983a. pendleton I Artificial Reef, Benthic and fish community d,evelopment, septernber Lg8r-November 1993, Final Report, vorume r. Report I to the Marine Review Cornrnittee. Lockheed ocean science Laboratories (LosL). 19g3b. pend,leton I Artificial Reef, ptervqophora transplantation study, Final t Report, Volume fI. Report to the Marine Review Cornmittee. Lockheed ocean Science Laboratorj.es (LoSL). 1983c. Succession on

Pendreton Artificial Reef: An artificial reef designed to

support a kelp forest, Final Report, volume rlr. Report to the

Marine Review Comrnittee.

Marine Review Committee (MRC). 1980. Predictions of the effects

of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and I - I Literature Cited 79 Recommendations. Part I: Recommendations, pred,ietions and. I Rationale. Report to the California Coastal Commission, l{Rc I Document 80-04 (I) . McNeil, w.J. and D.c. Himsworth, Eds. tggo. sarrnonid Ecosystems I of the North Pacj.fic. oregon state university press. 33r pp. Momma,H-, K. Kobayashi, T.Kato, y. sasaki, T. sakamoto and,H. t Murata. 1980. On the artificial propagation method, of abalone and its effects on rocky shore. r. Rernaining ratio of the I artificial seed abalones (Haliotis discus hannai INo) on the I latticed artificiar reefs. suisan zoshoku. 282 59-65. Morse, D.E. 1984. Biochemical engineering for improved. prod,uction I of commercially valuable marine shellfish. California Sea Grant Biennial Report, Report No. R-csccp-O13z 87-9L. I Morse, D.E.' K.K. chew and R. Mann (eds.) 1994. Recent, I innovat,ions in cultivation of pacif ic nolluscs. Development,s in Aquaculture and, Fisheries science ]4t 404 pp. (Reprinted, I from Aguaculture, Vo1. 39.) Mottet, M.G. 1985. Enhancement of the marine environment for I fisheries and aquaculture in Japan. rn: F.M. Drrtri, ed. I Artificial Reefs: Marine and Freshwater Applications. Lewis Publ. Inc., Che1sea, Michigan. pp. I3-ll2 I Neushul, M. and B.w.w. Harger. 1995. Studies of biomass yietd from a near-shore macroalgal test farm. J. Solar Energy I Engineering 1071 93-96. I I I I - t Literature Cited 80 Neushul Mariculture fnc. 1981. Historical review of kelp beds in I the Southern California aight. Southern California Ed.ison CompanyResearch Report Series No. 81-RD-99. 74 pp.

I North, w.J. 1981. use of Macrocystis embryos, grrown in mass I curtures, to restore depleted kelp beds. proceed.ings of the 8th Internation Seaweed Syrnposium: 443-449. I onuf, c.P. L985. Letter. u.s. Fish and wildlife service. (see Appendix 3)

I Parker, K. 1985. A statistical study of rnetal concentrations in I sand crabs (Ernerita analocra) on beach sites near SoNGs. Report to the Marine Review Conmittee. I Patton, M.L. 1985. changes in fish abund,ance in the southern california Bight during a warm-water episod.e. chapter 8 in I Marine Environmental Analysis and, Interpretatj-on, Report on

1984 Data. southern california Ed.ison Report, No. 85-RD-37. 34 I pp. I Perry, D.M. and R.c. Fay. 1996. san onofre Nuclear Generating Station (soNcs) as a source of metals and concentrations of I metals in sand, crabs. Report to the Marine Revj-ew Committee. 3r pp.

I Peterman, R.M. L980. Testing for density-depend,ent marine I su:rrival in Pacific salmonids. rn: McNeil, w.J. and D.c. Himsworth, Eds. Salrnonid Ecosystems of the North pacific. I Oregon State University press. pp. l.-24. I t I I Literature Cited - 81 I Race, M.S. 1983. An assessment of salt march restoration and, I inplications for Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Zone f83. pp. J-473-l..476.

I Radovich, R. L982. comments on paper by M.J. Boyd, salt marsh I faunas: colonization and monitoring. rn: Josselyn, M., ed. Wetland restoration and enhancement in California. Workshop I Proceedings, California Sea Grant Collect program publication, Report No. T-CSGCP-}O7. p. 93.

I Rappoport, A.G. L979. An evaluat,ion of alternatives for more effective wildlife mitigations. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State

I University, Fort Collins, Colorad,o. 156 pp. I Rice, D.w. 1993. Los Angeres Harbor kerp transplant project. Coastal Zone r93. pp. 1082-1089. I schambergert M. and A. Farner. rg7g. The Habitat Evaluation Procedures: Their application in project planning and impact

I evaluation. Forty-third North Nnerican wild.life Conference I Proceedings: 274-2g3. schnitt, R.J. dnd J.H. conneIl. 1994. Fierd evaluation of an I abalone enhancement program. Californj-a Sea Grant Biennial Report, Report No. R-CSGCP-OI3z L72-L76.

I shabman, L.A. and s.s. Batie. 1979. Econornic value of naturar

coastal wetlands: A critiqfue. Coastal Zone Management Journal I 4z 23L-247. I sheehy, D. 1981. Artificial reefs as a means of rnarine mitigation and, I habitat improvement, in Southern California. Report to the I I I Literature Cited - 82 I Marine Review Committee, Jan. 27, 19g1. Aquabio, Inc., I Columbia, Md. 68 pp. Smith, D.D. 1983. A practical evaluative proced.ure for the d.esign

I of coastal wetland restoration projects. Coastal Zone r83. I pp. L477-t4s7. Sorenson, J. and S. Gates. L983. New direction in restoration of I coastal wetlands. Coastal Zone r83. pp. J427-J443. Stupka, R.C. and R.K. Sharna. L977. Survey of fish irnpingement at I power plants in the United States. Vo1. III. Estuaries and, coastal waters. ARGoNNENational Laboratory, r11. 310 pp.

I Tayror, F.G., Jr., L.K. Mann, R.c. Dahlrnan and F.L. Milrer. 1975. I Environmental effects of chrornium and zinc in cooling-water drift,. rn: cooling Tower Environment - rg74. u.s. Energy I Research and Development Ad,mini.strati.on, ERDA symposium seriesi CONF-740302. pp. 408-426.

I Tegner, M.J. r984a. Experinental abarone enhancement, program. I california sea Grant Biennial Report, Report No. R-csccp-O13: L20-].2r. I Tegner, M.J. 19g4b. Evaluation of the experiment abalone enhancement program. California Sea Grant Biennial Report, I Report No. R-CSGCP-0I3: 170-12I. I Thomas, G.L., R.E. Thorne, w.c. Acker, T.B. stables and A.s. Kolok. 1980. The effectiveness of a velocity cap and decreased flow I in reducing fish entrapnent. Final Report to southern California Edison company. University of Washington Fisheries

I Research fnst,itute publication FRI-UW-8 O27. I I t Literature Cited - 83 I Thum, A., J. Gonor, A. carter and M. Foster. 1993. Review of I Mitigation: Final Report. Report to the Marine Review Committ,ee, Dec. 2I, 1983. 79 pp.

I Tobin, L.T. 1984. Letter to the Marine Review Commj.ttee from the I California Coastal Commission. June g, 1994. Turner, c.H., E.E. Ebert, and R.R. Given. 1969. Man-made reef I ecology. California Department of Fish and Gane, Fish Bulletin 146. 221 pp.

I united states Fish and wildlife service. 1991. u.s. Fish and I Wild1ife Senrice Mitigation Po1icy. Federal Register 46(15): 7644-7663. (see Appendix 1) I Wenner, A.M. L982. Sand crab population structure report. Report to the Marine Review Cornrnittee.

I williams, P.B. and H.T. Harvey. 1983. california coastal salt marsh restoration design. coastal zone rg3. pp. r444-L4s6.

I wirson; K.c.1 P.L. Haaker and D.A. Hanan. rg7g. Restoration of I Macrocystis pvrifera (Phaeophyceae) at Palos Verd,es penisula, California'. Proceedings of the 9th International Seaweed, I symposium: 85-89. wilson, K. and R. McPeak. 1993. Kelp restoration. rn synposium

I on the Effect of wast Disposal on Kelp, €d. by w. Bascom. I Scripps Inst. Oceanogr., La Jolla, Ca1if. pp. Lgg-2l.6. Zedler, J.B. 1982. The ecology of Southern california coastal I salt marshes: A community profile. u.s. Fish and wildlife I Service FWSIOBS-9L/54, 110 pp. I t I Literature Cited - 84 I ; Zedler, J. 1984. Coastal wetlands managenent: restoration and I establishment. California Sea Grant Biennial Report, Report I No. C-CSGCP-OL3:30-33. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 85 I I TABLE 1 t Resource Categories and Mit,igation planning Goals I of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service These four resource categories are described in the Fish and Wildlife Servi ce Mi.tigation policy (see Append.ix 1) . The I principres guiding the nitigation-pianning-goals are: (r) that avoidance or compensat,ion be reconmended. ioi tne most valued resources, and (2) that the degree of rnitigation reguested correspond to the varue and scarcity of the habitat at risk. I Thusr €ls the Resource categories decrease in importance, the nltlSation planning goals d.ecrease in stringency. rn keeping with the habitat-based philosophy of the rwi rniligation p6ri,cy, I the Resource Categories refer to habit,ats. t Resource Designation Mitigation planning t Category criteria goal

High value for evaluation No loss of existing I species and uniqrre and habitat va1ue. irreplaceable.

High value for evaluation No net loss of in- I species and scarce or kind habitat I becoming scarce. vaIue. High to mediurn value for No net loss of habitat evaluation species and value while nin- I abundant. inizing loss of in-kind habitat value.

I Medium to low value for Mininize loss of I evaluation species. habitat value. I t I I 86 t TABLE 2

I Surnmary of Kelp Transplants t,o Art,ificial Reefs

I Possible Causes Location Date Disposition of Mortality Santa Monica Bay 1959 No plants sunrived Fish grazing I Reefs 1961 High water temperatures Water turbidity I Pendleton L980 Few plants su:rrived Fish grazing Artificial Reef Some recruitment High water temperatures in 1984 Inadequate light I Space pre-ernpt,ion Neushul 1984 Good adult survivor- Sto:m-related rnortal ity Mariculture Reef ship I No recruitment

Los Angeles L977 Initial rnortality Storm-related mortality I Harbor Reef Fish grazlng Eventual success, spread of bed I Good recruitment I I Natural recruitment to artificial reefs: Paradise Cove 1958 Good recruitment, Persisted for several I years Eventually disappeared, I never reappeared Bureaucrat Reef ]',97S Good recruitment Storrn-related nortality Persisted two years in wint,er 1978 Has not reappeared I Several smal,l plants I seen in 1983 I I I I 87 I TABLE 3 Fish species that use coastal wetlands in Southern California I for spawning or nursery gror:nds (from Zedler 1982).

LocaCron. source Commercialspp. using and sampl.ing wet'land for spawning I pro gram Dominantsoee:es Resident soecies

Tijuana Estuary arrow goby arrow goby California halibuc I Ford et, al.. cheekspot goby Cheekspot goby diamond turbot (1971): Ca. killifish Ca. killifish kelp bass I 1 stations topsmelt topsmel I spoited sand bass in Dec. 1970 striped mull.et striped rnulleE barred sand bass I + spring 1970 data of McIllwee (1970)

I Upper NewporL Bay topsmelt tc p srnell not assessed; All.en (1980): Ca. killifish Ca. klllifish possibly Anchoa sp. 3 stations. Ca. rnosqui.tof:sh Ca. mosquitofish and diamond turboe nont,hly frcm arrow goby arrow goby I Jan . 1978- deep body anchovy Iongjaw mudsucker Jan.1979

Anaheim tsay to psmelt l^6

Coiorado Lagoon northern anchovy l'ancnal l. nog assesseo; Al.Ien & Horn topsmelt shiner surfperch possibly slough t (1975) : slough anchovy Ca. killifish anchovy J stations, shiner surfperch staghorn sculpin monthly in 1973 slough anchovy I Mugu Lagoon shiner surfpercn topsmelt shiner surfpereh Onuf et aL. topsmelt Ca. kitlifish Ca. hallbut ( 1978): staghorn sculpin Ca. halibut diamondfurbot I 4 staElons, Ca. ki.11i.fi.sh diamond turbot, 20 nonthly Ca. halibut Iongjaw urudsucker sanples, 1977- dianond turbol grey smoothound 1978 white croaker bay blenny I bay pipefish shadow goby longJaw mudsucker I Eikhorn Slough sur fperches not assessed black surfperch Nybakken et al. fl.atf ishes white surfperch (1977 ) : staghorn sculpin starry flounder 4 stations, & other flatflshes I 23 months I I BB TABLE 4

Status and future acti.ons on wetland restoration projects in California (from Gates 1982). COASTAL WETLANDS PROTECT PROJECTDESCRIPTION ACENCT PROTECTSTATUSzuTLTREACTIONS

Lake Earl/ Completelcquisitron oi Lake fu rllTawala wCB Negotiahng for addi- Unknown Tawala. Del None tional land acquisition llcDonald Creek Restorationof riparianvegetanon bv acquisition SCC ln review process Implementation in Humiroldt ot J conservationeascment. planring npanan November 1982 species..rnd tencingthc area Dw Lagooni Comoieteacquisitions at Big Lagoon DFC Acquisitioncomplete Develop general plan Big Lagooni in fanuarv for all three lagoons Stone Lagoon 1982 hcluding restoration Humboldt a5 necess:[v Elk River Elk fuver RestorationPlan-Restoration as part Citv of In reviewprocess Restorationantici- Humboldt of a wastewatertreatment prolect which allows Euieka/ pated in next iew vears expansionof the Eurekasewage treatment plant DFG Tomales Bav Funding to run a seriesof citizens workshops SCC In review process lmplementation in Marin to develop a watershed management program November l9E2 Pescadero Acquisitiono[ additionalwetland areasin DFG Negotiathg the Unknown .\{arsh pnvate ownership acquisition San Mateo lVilder Creek Designanonof the creekalreadv in public DFG Negotiaringthe Developpark SantaCruz olvnership asa naturepreserve lbr snorrrr acquisition facilities plor er n95ti.t. Acquisitionof uplands around crecK. Hills Ranch Deciicadonof an easementto prote€triparian SCC To becompleted None vegetanonas part oi a coastalpermit Lagrna Grandei lVatershedmanagement and park Citiesof Developingthe plan Plancompletion and Roberts Lake improvement/wetlandrestorarion plan lvlonterev implementation llonterev & Seaside Elkhom Slough (a) .{cquisitionof additionaluplands DFG Negotiating the Inclusion in the ltonterev sunounding the estuaryas part of the acouisition gnctuarv e5rua nne sanctuarv Progr:rm (b) Restorationand ongoingmonitoring of a Research-Constmctionstarted Ongoingconshrc- diked agricrrltural area Augrst 1981 tion and research ffiS Landing Marine Labs Watsonville/ land dedication to prote(t wetland from DFG Negotiating the Unknown PaiaroSloush encroaching development dedication Saira Cruz- Uttle Sur Acquisition of the lower river and floodplain DFG Unknown Unlnown River and designation as a state nes€rweor Monterey natural presenrein StatePark Swee6prinss Dedication or bargain saleof the marsh SCC Negotiating the Development of a Marsh' and surroundinguolands acquGition restoration Plan SanLuis Obispo Pismolake and lawsuit agahst upstream developers tbr DFG Ongoing Unknown Ecolocical acormulated sedirnentsh Lake Reseie San Luis Obispo Isla Visa Acquisition and enhancementof vernal pools SCC & Ptancompleted and lmplementation of Vernal Pools, and development of an educational progn m tsla V'sta firnding allocated. restoration plan. Sana Barbara and presewe system for furure acquisitiorV Parks & Land negotiations dedication of vemal pooLrin the area in progress s;;

wcB - WildliJe Conservation Board CCC -CalifomiaCoastalComrnission scc - State Coastal Consewanor USFWS -U.5. Fsh and Wildlife Service DFG - Departnrent of Fish and Game RWQCA - Regional WaterQuality Control Board TABLE (Continued)

PROIECT PROIECT DESCRTPTTON AGENCY PRoTECTSTATUSFUTURE.{CTIONS

Carpinteria (a) Flo

OrmandBeach Restorationand dedicationas part of a coastal Land- Under discussion Venfura Aoolication tbr Perrnlt owner CCC permit or public agencv Mugu Lagoon lmprovements to water circulation Nany, venrur:t RestorationPlan Unknown USFIVS completebut not funded Malibu Laeoon Restorationand expansion of salt water marsh DFG RestorationPlan LosAneel6s Constn:ction upon Ciil completeand resolutionof funding available. lawsuit Delaveddue to lawsuit. Los Cerritos Consolidation and enhancement of 130acles SCC Site plan Wetlands lmplemenadon of of scattereddegraded wetland development a restoftrtion Los Plan Anseles as pan of a devel- cry. opment permit in the next 10-20years Seal Beach Restorationof the scattereddegraded wetlands SCC Under review Site plan develop- Wedands onSrte mentand irnple- Orange Cry. mentation Anaheirn Bav Restorationof historic wetland to tidal marsh USFWS Underconsuuction None Orange Ctv.' and improving circulation to eristing wetland Santa Ana Acquire the tidal salt marsh and improve water COE Plancomplete [mplementation RiverMouth citculation as mitigation for a flood tonnol will be at least Orange C{v. Prolecr 1986 UpperNewport Restorationhdudhg dredging to remor.e DFG Plan complete and Unlnown Biv secment and upsEam s€dirnent basins paaially tunded OingeCtv.

Los Penasquitos Develop plan o periodicallv breach the SCC, Developing Irnplementation Lagoon u|goon moutn Sandag the plan Summer 1982 San Diego Ctv. Buena \fsa Development of a plan to preserueand enhance SCC, Watershedmanage- Implementation Geek& the wetlands and ripa;ian indudhg DFG ment plan under of watershed [agoon Ietal hstnrments, a wateEhed lttarutgement wa), and nestora- management Plan San Diego Cry. plan, a fuiancing plan and acquisition of tion plan being additional wetland developed. Batiquitos Acquisition of additional wetland WCB Negotiating the Unknown Lagoon acquisition San Diego Cry. 90 I TABLE4 (Continued)

PROIECT PROTECT I DESCRTPTTON AGENC^T PROTECTSTATUSRJTURE ACTIONS - >an Elllo Acuursriion .rnd re:it(rratronbv recontounng San Construction To be completed Laqoon basrns, (,i installation water conrol rlences. Diego started Fall 1981 in 1982 I San Diego Cv. sucpiementrnq freshwater rvrth rreared Countv, . rvastc water.lnd dike conslnrcnon DFC, R!vQCB San Dieg.rito .{cquisinon.lnd restoration of rresh and 5CC, Plan complete, lmplementationof Lagoon hdal I saltwater marsh bv dredgng remaining Ciwof negotiating the (if acquisirions San Diego Cv. dikes, Part pumping ground-ater Del !lar, ocquisition are not successtul) DFC or all of the plan FamosaSlough Preparanon of hvdrologic srudies in order to 5CC. Hydrologic study Determine method San Diego Cv. I PrePJre restorufion plan Cirv of to start in to werland Protect 5an Februarv through Diego Tiajuana River .{cquisifion and implementanon of the ocz\r. Land appraisals Land negotiation Nafional Esruanne I Sancruarv program tor Tia juana scc. (n and plans for inter- Process Esruarine Esruarv including intbrpienve center ccc Sanctuarv Prenvecenter I San Diegb Cru. SAN FRANCISCO BAY PROJECT I PROIECTDESCRTPTTON AGENCY PROTECTSTATUS F(JTUREACTIONS Itarsh Rd. Pertormedin coniunctionrvith Citv of Some regrading, Site to be restored BavrrontPark, sanitin- land fill; eventual llenlo Park but no tidal adjacent to planned San.\lateoCv. restorationoi 150acres activitv; BayrrontPark I ECDC:r8-;0 San Pedro Cove 1.5acre mrtisatton - tbr Pnvate No w6ik dqng' San Rrrael. condominiums landowner BCDC:/7-i I Itarin Ctv. Shoreline 0. 19acre mitigation for Private Entire pro ject Mav not be Center. construction of otfice complex landowner delaved: completed Itarin Crv. BCDC:35-79 VillageShopping I !titigrtion tbr shoppingcenter: Private Planning Construction Lenter, mulnple useas tlood basin; landowner completed. anticipated in lvlarin Cv. improve waterqualiv, and 1982 create habitat. 34 acres Coyote Hills I Test taciliv to demonstrate ABAG Planning comoleted Constnrction marsh/Eeatment 0se oi wetlands to treat (EPA 108) in cooperation unden^rav h.ilitv, urban runoif With EBRPD Alameda Cty. Pt. Edith, I lvlitigation for fill; requires DFG. SLC Restorationnot Will participate Conaa Costa restoEtion of 20 acFesin begun; as part of lalger Ctv. Carquinez Suaiu BCDC: t5-79 land banl Ravenswood Mitigation for Dumbarton lvlid-Peninsula 5350,00Oallocated Planning, permits, Triansle, I Bridge constnrction. Open SpaceDist. and implementation San Mateo Crv. lnner Harbor lnvolves dredging, dike- Richrnond Planning completed Construction in Easin marsh, breach, and planting for Redevelopment BCDC 11-78 coniunction with I ConFa Costa Ctv. a {.03 acre restoration Agenc,v rnarina development Coyote Creek Miti gation for industrial Private Planning completed; Project to be Slough, park to oeate 26i acre lagoon/ landowner BCDC: comPletd over Alameda I Ctv. ma6n svstem several yeaF; initial site to be used as borrow pit. Hayrard fresh- Creation of l5 aoe fresh- EBRPD Planning and AwaitingSCC water marsh, water marsh on tbrmer salt Frmit process in fundingand final I Alameda Cty. evapocltos. Will use treated Progress p€rmits effluent as freshwatersoutre I I I I TABLE 5

I : I Summary of nitigation techniques I I Technicrue considerations In-kind Replacernent I I KeIp bed restoration May not be appropriate Technical problems

I Kelp bed creation Technical problems

Artificial reef fnadeguate information about I fish production Questions about design I Fish hatchery Inadeguate life history info Invertebrate hatchery May not be effective Economics

I Restore nursery habitat, fnadeguate life history info Manj-pulate habitats Technical problerns I Out-of-kind Substitution Habit,at Restoration Difficult to deterrnine adecmat,e compensation I Technical problems I Coastal Presenration May not be appropriate Infornation Acguisition May not be appropriate I Monetary Payments May not be appropriate Difficult to determj_ne adeguate compensation

I Water Quality Improvement Difficult to determine adequate compensation I Loss Prevention Structural Modifications Economics I Unknown consequences Flow Restriction Economics

I Seasonal Restriction May not be effective I I I 92 I TABLE 6

I summary of previous reconmend,ations to the I{RC regarding nitigation t Sheehvl Thum2 LosL3 Ambrose4 Define nitigation objective X x xx I Transfer Japanese technology X Reef design and placement I 1) field survey x 2) field experiment x x Studies on production of fish I 1) field survey x 2) field experiment x I Studies on production of kelp 1) experiment x x 2) technigues for establishing x x t Comparison with natural reefs x Manipulation techniques t (post-construction transplants, etc. ) x x I Future studies of pAR x Potential policy stances I (18 reconmendations)

I Bibliocrraphy lsheehy, D.J. 1981. Artificial reefs as a means of rnarine nitigation and habitat improvement in southern california. Final Report to the uarine Revi.ew cornmi.ttee. 69 pp. 2Thu*, |. , q. Gonor, ;r. carter and, M. Foster. r9g3. Review of I Yitigation: Final Report. Report to the Marine Review Committee. 78 pp. 3lockheed. I Ocean Science Laboratories (LosL), 1993. Succession on Pendreton Art,ificial Reef : An art,ificial reef designed, to support a ke1p.forest.. Finar Report, volume rrr. Report to I the Marine Review Committee 4Ambrose, R.F. 19g5. Artificial Reefs. Volum€ I, A Review and Analysis. Draft Report to the Marine Review Cornmittee. 1C5 I pp. I I FIGI'RE 1

General Location of the San Onofre Nuclear Generat,ing Station 94 I I SanraBarbara

I $an Mrguel ls Sanra &ur li LosAngeles I Santa Rosa ls

San Nrcotasls. I S 0ceanside I ol I ,u* 9.1m' \?+ I 18.1m M)) creek I I ,.n *--\. creek

SANMATEO I KELPBED. I \J5t-\vh LEGEN0 soKU)/'fr I \sox.ou E<] NuclearGeneratins fi;,.0;tt'. SAN0N0FBE I o outfail KELPBEo tr Originof ConrrolArray F - { Arrays of E:perrmenta!starrons \^ I StationsAddeC for c/] Flores on Id Ser Creek ortto.rir."it + OZ Unir2 Oiffuser )(E( I 03 unrr3 oiffuser rtl W i. nt"1'<. 1 BARNKELP I BEO \ hlometers

Figrure 1. Chatt of tie general San Onofre reqicrn. FIGIIRE 2

Locations of Wetlands in Southern Californi-a 96 I I

I z|lJ ts LU ul uJ = l = ! 2 I c{ I z @ = (9 ! z\ g I FI F

l. |:; -'* l- -1.c. I U EHg =JZ olQ ct) . ou-''i I |.lJ = t-Gi o €asl:=>Y,=z z ! ; g o at co> 0=qg:' E a 3 I ttt F< =Y cc co I Fz =to< =3:333:s3E3sE /#\ e sd€; :g eRiSRXRR I ( \,\r Y u q uJ U a) tn U I o o u) () .^E o o z J:1,: q

DTSTANCEFROM SHORE IN IOOOFEET

UnitI Dischorge C' - zo+ { + 4 \ 30= lntokes -rl 40H { -50

Diffuse -60 FIGURE 4

Diagram of the Fish Return System at SONGS 100

ctRc. PUM P TRAVELING SCREENS

FISH BYPASS CHAMBER

FISH RETURN CONDUIT FIGURE 5

Diagram of the Velocity Cap at SONGS 702

--r -

--

--

-.--,

-

-> APPENDTX 1

Mitigation policy of the U.S. Fish and'Wildlife Service I FridaY 23, 1981 I January I t I rl I I I Part lll Departmentof the I lnterior I Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation I Policy I I tl ;t

[As corrected in the Federal Register of February4' t 19811 I I A3

I 76/'4 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23. 1981 / Notices

OEPARTMENTOF THE INTERIOR and animalspecies are variedand (1) Recentlegislative. executive and I complex.Each species requires a regulatorydevelopments concerning the Fish and Wildlife Service different set of environmentalconditions environmentwhich haveled to a needto for survival and vigorousgrowth. These updateand expandthe advicewithin U.S.Fish and Wildllfe Service conditionsform the habitatof the the 1974Service policy statement: Pollcy; I Mitigation Noticeof FinalPolicy variousspecies. The developmentand (2)Increasing Service review AGENcy:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. useof naturalresources leads to responsibilitieswhichrequire issuance of Departmentof the Interior. changesin environmentalconditions comprehensiveguidance on mitigation Acrrot{: Notice of Final Policv. that can redefinehabitat and thus to maintainthe qualityand consistency changethe mix and abundanceofplant of Servicemitigation recommendations; I suuMARv:This Notice establishesfinal and animalspecies. (3) An explicit summaryof Service policy guidancefor U.S.Fish and A given changein habitat might mitigation planninggoals and policies to Wildlife Servicepersonnel involved in increaseor decreaseoverail habitat be disclosedto developersand action making recommendationsto protector productivity or result in gainsor losses agenciesto aid their earliestplanning I conservefish and wildlife resources. of speciesthat are valuabieto peopleor efforts:and The policy is neededto: (1) ensure ecosystems.[n somecases, habitat (a) Finally, the current national need consistentand effectiveService modificationscan also increasethe to acceleratedevelopment of energy recommendations:(2) allow Federaland numbersof speciesconsidered resourceswhich requiresthat early private developersto anticipateService undesirable.and createa nuisanceto planning decisionsbe made that can I plan recommendationsand for peopleor crowd out more valuable minimize conflict betweenimportant mitigation needsearly: and (3)reduce species.Therefore, development actions environmentalvalues and energy Serviceand developerconJlicts as well can causehabitat changesthat are development. project as delays.The intendedeffect of consideredeither beneficialor adverse For thesereasons, it was determined I the policy is to protect and conservethe dependingon the intendedwildlife to be necessaryto fully outline the managementobjectives. most important and valuablefish and overall mitigation policy of the U.S.Fish wildlife while When professionalbiologists resources facilitating and Wildlife Service.The final Service development determinethat a given development balanced of the Nation's policy statementintegrates and outlines natural resources. action will causea changethat is I the major aspectsof current Service EFFEgrrvEoate: fanuary 23,1981. consideredadverse, it is appropriateto considerways to avoid or minimize and mitigationefforts. Intended as an ADDRESS:Comments submitted on the guidance compensatefor suchadverse change or overview document,its is proposedpolicy may be inspectedin loss of public resources.This is basedon an analysisof cunent Service I Room 738,7375K Sbeet.N.W., field recommendationsand on the commonlyreferred to as mitigation. Washington,D.C. 2mO5,between 9 a.m. Fish and wildlife resourcesare public guidancecontained in recentService and 3 p.m. on businessdays. in nature.The Servicehas provided managementdocuments. FOR FURTHER II{FORilATIOII COI{TACT: Federalleadership for over tlOyears to This policy conditions only the I lohn Christian. Policy Group Leader- protect and consenrefish and wildlife actionsof Serviceemployees involved Environment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and their habitat for the benelit of the in providing mitigation Service,Department of the Interior, peopleof the United States.Under its recommendations.It doesnot dictate gton. Wa shin D.C. 2O24{J,,(202) 343-7 757. legalauthorities, the Serviceconducts actionsor positionsthat Federalaction I SUPPLEUENTARY INFORIIATIOI{: fish and wildlife impact investigations agenciesor individuals must accept. However,it is hoped that the policy will BACKGROUND and providesmidgation recommendationson development provide a corlmon basis for mitigation The developmentand useof the proiects of all kinds. These efforts have decisionmakingand facilitate earlier I Nation's natural resouces continuesin been conducted through a full considerationof fish and wildlife values an effort to provide people with their partnershipwith Stateagencies in project planningactivities. basic needsand to improve their lives. rcsponsible for fish and wildlife Finally, it shouldbe stressedthat this Fish and wildlife and the intricate fabric resources.and since 1970,with the Service policy outlines mitigation needs of natural resourcesupon which they National Marine Fisheries Serwiceof the for fish and wildlife. their habitat and I dependprovide people benefits to in U.S.Deparment of Commerce.The uses thereof. Others interested in many ways. Fishing, hunting. and bird recommendationsof the Service are mitigation of project impactson other watching are basic benefits that come to consideredby the Federaldevelopment aspects of the environmenl such as mind immediately. These activities and regulatoryagencies for their human health or heritageconsenration I involve the direct use of these adoptionas permittedby law. may find the Servicepolicy doesnot renewable "natural resoruces."Perhaps Over the years,the Servicehas fully cover their needs.There wag no a gxeaterbenefit. althougb more difficult reviewed innumerable project and intent to developa mitigation policy that for some to understand.is the progran plans with the potential to coversall possiblepublic impacts t maintenance of the stnrcfute and adversely affect fish and wildlife except thosestated. However. the function of the ecosystemthat comprises resources.The mitigation reconmended Servicestrongly believes that all living species.including people.The in recent years by Service personnel to preservationand conservationof presenceofdiverse. bealthy fish and preventor ameliorateadverse impacts natual resourcesis a necessary I wildlife populations geuerally signals a has been governedprimarily by a broad prerequisiteto h"man existence. bealthy ecosystemwhich containsthose policy statementon mitigation elements necessary for hurnan gurwival, promulgated in 1974and by specific DISCUSSION iocluding unpolluted air and productive guidelinesissued ag needed.Recent The following items are included to I land. events have prompted the Service to provide a better understanding of tbe That fabric of natural resorrlcer called make knowu its oitigation objectives polica's relationship to other gridance habitat ia the suppiy for fish aad wildlife and policies. Specific management and to improve lhe unders6rling of its I nenewal. The life requireoentr for plant needginclude: te6hniqal!ssis. I A4 I Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23, 1987 / Notices 7V 1. Relationship of ServiceMitigatioo proposedaction (40CFR Part 1502.14). resourcemay be cut off by the proiect Policy to Other Senric6Plenning The NEPA regulationslater specifythat and significantrecreational or Activities. Serviceimpact analysesand mitigation commercialbenefits may be lost. I recommendationsshall be usedas input ln thosecases where mitigationof The final policy is designedto stand to preparationof draft environmental habitatvalue is not deemedadequate on its own. However.for a clearer impact statements(DEIS) as follows: for lossesof fish and wildlife perspectiveof the relationshipof the "To the fullest extent possible. populationsor human uses,the Service policy to thegoals and obiectivesof the agenciesshall preparedraft will seekto mitigatesuch lossesin I Wildlife Service,it can be U.S.Fish and environmentalimpact gtatementg accordancewith the generalprinciples read with the ServiceManagement Plan concurrentlywith and integratedwith and conceptspresented in the policy. and the Habitat PreservationProgram environmentalimpact analysesand However, in the maiority of cases.the lv{anagement D ocument. related surveysand studiesrequired by Servicefeels that mitigationof impacts I The ServiceManagement Plan the Fish and Wildlife CoordinationAct on habitat values will assurea describes the overall direction of the (16U.S.C. 661 et seq.),the National continuoussupply of fish and wildlife Serviceand the intertelationshipsof the Historic PreservationAct of 1966(16 populationsand humanuse four major categories,including Habitat U.S.C.470 et seq.),the Endangered opportunities. I Preservation.Wildlife Resources. SpeciesAct of 1973(16 U.S.C. 1531 et The Sertricehas recentlyrevised and FisheryResources. and FederalAid- seq.),and other environmentalreview updated its Habitat Evaluation EndangeredSpecies. laws and executiveorders." (40 CFR Procedures (HEP). It can be used. wher' The Habitat PresenrationProgram 1s02.2s(a)). appropriate,to determinemitigation I ManagementDocument outlines what Theseprovisions provide clear needsbased on habitat value losses.In the Service will do over a one- to five- direction that NEPA requirementsare somecases, the project may not be year period to ensure the conservation not duplicativeof or substitutefor deemedappropriate for applyingthe and proper managementof fish and mitigation recommendationsdeveloped methodologyas in the caseof activities I wildlife habitat. It providesguidance to under the Fish and Wildlife conductedon the higtr seasunder the Servicepersonnel and otherinterested CoordinationAct and other Service Outer ContinentalShelf (OCS) leasing parties on the goals,obiectives, policies, authorities. ln fact. the NEPA program.In such cases.the use of other and strategiesof the Habitat reguiationsrequire that Service methodsto describehabitat value PreservationCategory of the U.S.Fish recommendationsbe fuily integrated impactsis clearly acceptable,including I and Wildlife Senrice.It includesa into the NEPA processas vital the best professionaljudgment of discussionof importantresource information necessaryto comply with Servicebiologists. Other limitations problemsthat the Servicebelieves NEPA. related to the use of HEP are outlined ir require priority attenUon. the EcologicalServices Manual (t00 3. Focus of the Policy on Habitat Value. I 2. Relationship of the Mitigation Policy ESM 1).The HEP are availableupon policy coversimpacts to frsh and of to any future Fish and Wildlife The requestfrom the Chief,Division wildlife populations,their habitat and U.S.Fish and Coordination Act (FWCA) Regulations EcologicalServices, human uses thereof. However. the Deparhnentof the and the National EnvironmentalPolicy the Wildlife Senrice, primary focus in terms of specific Washington. D.C. 2024iJ,. t Act (42 U.S.C.$21-4it44 (NEPA). lnterior, guidanceis on the mitigationof lossesof Acre for Acre toss ReplacemeotIs The Service mitigation policy outlines habitat value.Population estimates are 4. Necessarily Recommendedby the internal guidancefor Servicepersonnel consideredby many to be unreliable Not for all investigationsand indicatorsfor evaluatingfish and Policy. I policy recommendationsfor mitigationunder wildlife impacts.Sampling errors, cyclic As explainedabove. the relevant Serviceauthorities, including fluctuationsof populationsand the lack focuseson habitat value.The habitat the FWCA and NEPA. However, the of time seriesdata all contributeto the value of an acre of habitat can vary coverageof the policy is basically problem.Therefore, the Servicefeels considerablydepending on the type of I different from that of any future FWCA that habitat value.by measwing vegetationand other physical.biologicr regulations as was explained in the carrying capacity,is a much better basis or chemicalfeatures. Service preambleto the proposedpolicy for determining mitigation requirements. recommendations.therefore. will be (September9. 1980)(45 FR 59486-59494). However, tle use of population basedon the habitat value adversely li Any future FWCA regulationswill information is not foreclosedby the irnpacted.as opposedto strictly acreaS principally recommend proceduresfor policy. ln fact. concern for population For example,loss of one acre of a all affectedagencies to ensure lossesled to formulationof the "General specifrclype of wetland might result in compliancewith that Act beforeand Policy" sectionto ". . .seek to ricomruendationsfor replacementof I after they receive frsh and wildlife mitigate all lossesof fish, wildlife. less than one acre of a different type of agencyrecommendations. In contrast, their habitat and usesthereof . . ." The wetland of greaterhabitat value.lf the the Servicemidgation policy only Serviceagrees that mitigationof habitat value of the wetland available applies to Servicepersonnel and populationlosses is a necessaryaspect for replacementwas equal to that lost. I outlinesmitigation planninggoals and of this policy, for example.when habitat then recommendationscould be on an policies for impact analysesand value is not affectedbut migration acre-for-acrebasis. recommendations. routes are blocked off as in the caseof 5. Rationalefor Mitigation pftnning The reiationship of the mitigation dam consEuctionon a salrnonriver. Goals. policy to NEPA reguirementsis also a Mitigation of human uselosses of fish I complementaryone. The regulations and wildlife resourcesis also a In developingthis policY,it was implementing NEPA (43FR 55978-56007) necessaryaspect of the policy. agreedthat the fundamentalprinciples recognize"appropriate" mitigation However, if mitigation of habitat value guidingmitigation are: 1) that avoidant recommendationsas an important occrue,then in the maiority of cases, or compensationbe recommendedfor I elementof the rigorousanalysis and lossesof human use are also minimized. the most valued resources:and 2) that display of alternatives including the But. in somecases. public accessto the the degreeof mitigationrequested I I A5 7W Federal Register Yol. I I 46. No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23. 1981 / Notices correspond to the value and scarcity- of risk was also supported by many the habitat at or otherwise.as discussedin ! g 1502.16 risk. Four Resource commentoF. Numerous commentors Categories of and,tsog.zz. decreasing importance also praised its scope, cohesiveness I were irlintified. and This.problemis particularlyvexsome with mitigation planning clarity, and stressed that it should when thoseimpacts depend on future goals of decreasing stringency provide qevetoped valuable guidance for contingenciesand can be more tor these categories. Table 1 Govemment personnel providing- appropriatelyanalyzed when those summarizes all categories and their technical and project plinning contingenciesoccur. Even $ 1502.4, I 8Oals. assistance. which discussedEIS's in termsof broad Detailed responses Table 1: Resource Categorles and to significant agencyactions. does so in the context of conrments MlUgailon planning Goalr follow: specificimpacts caused by the action.Irr GENERAI. COMMENTS ON TIIE the opinion of the Service,it has fullv I Re.dce PROPOSED compliedwith the letter carsgsY ry,tr *?"?-"'" SERVICE MITIGATION and spirit of POUCY NEPA and its reculations. Comment: I High value tor ildElon i€ 16 ot gristir€ Comment:Although the Service OnJ commentorfelt that spsigs and u|we ard lra!ftrt v!rs. the preamble aregtaceable. preparedan EnvironmentalAssessment statementthat an EIS would be premature I 2 High vatua ftr dalualon l{o rpt t6s ot iF and. from its findings,concluded that at this time spe6 mt sac9 d rir|d hsbrtet contradicteda finding DCOmng policy issuancedid not constifute of no significant $aco. vt€. a t lmpact. High to medruo value tC No rt toss ot major Federalaction which would waruaDon ffi6 and hab.t.t vd6 Eesponse:The Serrricesees no ahJndan! significantlyaffect the quality of the ltse trinirojr|g human environment contradictionwith a finding of no I l6E of iFtind within the meaninc significantimpact hlbitat vstrF. of SectionLOZ(2)(C) of the National and the statement Medaum to tfr value d Miirtrteol that an EIS is premature.The findinc aaluoonffi EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEpA),a of tr8bat8lyalue. few no significant commentorsdisagreed with the impact derivesfrom ai analy_sis Service'sconclusion that an showingthat the policy has no I POUCY HISTORY significant EnvironmentalImpact Statement(EIS) impactsamenable to analvsis at the present The policy statementintegrates and was not necessaryfor the proposed time.However. when in outlines the major aspectsoi cunent action. the future the Service does apply- the Servicemitigation policy in developingmitigati6n efforts.lntended as . Response:Dprng policy development, I an overyiew docunent, its guidance the Service recommendationsfor a naior Federal is took action to deterrrine if action which-might basedon an analysis of ovjr 3s0Service preparationof an environmentalimpact significantlyaffect the quality of the trelclrecornmendations and on the statementunder NEPA was required. human environnent. then the environmental guidancecontained in recentService A.lthoughsection 1508.18 of the'Council impacts Eanagement associatedwith implementingthose t documents.The proposed on EnvironmentalQuality's (CEe) policy recommendationswhich was publishedin the F;de;al Kegulatlonstor implementingthe are ionsidered justifiableby the-development !9e"t". on September9, 1980(45 FR proceduralprovisions of NEpA agency can be analyzedby that 5948F59494).A corection noticewhich classifiedadoption of an official policy develophenl agency.The Servicehas I conected insignificant formatting and as a "Federalaction," it remained no wav of predictingwhich typogrnphical errors was publish-edon unclearas to whether of its recommindations this action was b-eaccepted September19. 1980 (4S FR62564). A "major," or whether it lvill by the developen would therefore.analysis notice extendingthe commentperiod on "significantly" affect the quality of impacts6f of the acceptedmitigation recommendations the proposedpolicy to November10, environment, since policy is I luqan the responsibilityof the developer. 198Owas publishedon October8, 1980 implementationwould not iesuli in or Comment:One comrnentorwis (45 ry 66sl8l. The final publicarion is substantia-llyalter agencyprograms. of the As that an EIS "should be prepared basedon full and thorouch was stated in the preamble, policy lpinion this for the Service'sproposed nitigiti6n considerationof the publ-iccomments as is b.asicailya distillation of approaches I (uscussedbelow. recommendationson eachprojlct..' and policy.curently being priiUced by Moreover,the commentor Deruce hetd personnel fllt'that a RESPONSETO COMMENTS in providing significant portion of these mitigationrecommendations. EIS's should Over 90 sets be devotedto analysis of economic of courmenrswere ln order to resolve this uncertainty, received proposed an rmpacts. I on the policy. All EnvironmentalAssessment was courmentswere Response:Wtigation thoroughly analyzed preparedfor the proposedand and cataloged frnal recommendationsand actionscannot be and considired.Manv policy. By doing so. the Sevice com.mentors has meaningfully analyzed except in the expressedagreemeut with compliedwith one of the maior Servicepublication DurDoses context of the developmentiction I of the policy,- of the NEPA regulations, which is ti initiating them.And. since an EIS would sensinga more consistentand have NEPA applied early in the be requiredfor any major Federal predictableService approach to decisionmakingprocess. action which would significantly affect mitigation recom.rnendationsand a The NEPA the relulations do noL in the quality of the human environment resu]tant decreasein the degreeof opinion and I of the Serrrice.require that the whose alternativeswould conflict with developers.Miny include felt the agencyspeculate on future.possible consideration pollcy representeda rational of mitigation.a separate' approach eventswithout any relation to actual, EIS wouid to fish and wildlife resource not be neclssary for edsting impactsof an action.Section mitigationactions. management,and that it would provide 7fi2.2 I of the NEPA regulations directs Under the FWCA" the action agency for adequateprotection and that an EIS is to be analytical.boweve& which makesthe ultimate conservationof the Nation's frsh decisionisio and the Serviceaction simply doesnot include all "iustifiable wildlife resoulces. The mitigationmeans underlyinn createany impactscapable of such and concept the degree measures"in project formulation. $a1 of mitigadon analysis.Thus, there is no reasonableor I requestedshould The burden of analyzing the economic correspondto the scientific way for the Sertriceto analyze impactsof "justifiable" nitigation inrportance and scarcityof the habitat at any environmental t iurpacts, sigrrificant measurestherefore rests primarily with t 46 I Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. fanuary 23. 1981 / Notices 7&r7

the proiect sponsor.who will likely use requirementson Federaldevelopment requiredstandard. Changes have been the Water ResourcesCouncil's aqenciesfallinc under that Act's made to reflect this. of the I Principlesand Standardsto assistin the to (llconsult with the Service. Comment:No mentionis made planningto anaiysis. National"itho"ity Marine FisheriesService Staterole in mitigation Comment: The substantive (NMFS)and Stateagencies responsible assurea compatibleaPProach. The requirementsof the Servicemitigation for fish and wildlife resources:(2) States'authorities and decisionmaking I policy shouldbe consistentwith the incorporatesuch rePorts and Drerogativeswith respectto lish and requirementsof the National recommendationsin one overall proiect *itatiie resourcesshould be denoted EnvironmentalPolicy Act's report: (3) provide "full consideration" and theStates' roles in mitigation implementingregulations and the Water of the "reports and recommendations;" shouldbe emphasizedfurther. aPProachis ResourcesCouncil's Principles and (4) include in the proiectplan "such Response:A comPatible appropriate I Standards. justifiable meansand measuresfor desirable.We have included policy is solely Response:We agree.The proposed wildlife purposesas the reporting changes.However. the personnel.There is no intent and frnal policy have beendeveloped agencyfinds shouidbe adoPtedto for Sirvice States'prerogatives. consistentwith the substantiveand obtain overall maximum to infringeon the Project shouldrequire l" proceduralrequirements of these benefits:"and (5) other requirements Comient: The PolicY of Service reSulauons. related to fundingand land acquisition. full oubiic disclosure analyses.determinations. anc Comment: The Environmental The clear intent of Congresswas that mitigation Assessmentidentifies as one of the recommendationsdeveloped by the U.S' recommendations. Response:We agree that full advantagesof the proposedmitigation and Wildlife Service,NMFS, and l. *' ' ' Fish of ServiceanalYses. policy the establishnentof responsiblefor fish and disclosure State agencies and recommendations minimum performance standards for wildlife resourcesbe taken seriously, determinations the mitigation processwould FWS recommendations(which) would no law which prohibits during and we know of public interest.All public serve as benchmarks by which the FWS from taking a position for or serve-the I ' ' the Service documentsassociated with Service and developersor actionagencies' againsta proiectwhen making could assessindividual Service recommendationsfor mitigationon mitigation recommendations. land and water developments mitigation proposals."However, neither policy will adverselY specific Comment:The are available for review in Ecological the FederalRegister notice nor the interests. impact developmental Servicesfield offices.No changein the I EnvironmentalAssessment identify or policy to Response:The goal of the is policvis necessary. discussthese "benchmarks." provide for equal considerationof fish ' "benchmarks" Comment:The Serviceshould Response:The term and wildlife conservationwhile goalsand specificailyaddress the acid rain referred to the mitigation facilitating development. planning procedures.Both the proposed problemin its policy.In particular,the I Congresshas clearlYstated that policy preambleand its Environmentai folicy shouldaddress the impact of "wildlife conservationshall receive programs Assessmentdiscussed these guidelines. Fedeial policies and that equal considerationand be coordinated their derivation and suDportpower plant conversionsto coai explaining with other featuresof water-resource importanceto policy purposes. EespohsetThe ServicecurrentlY I developmentprograms" {Pub. L 85{24' reviews suchFederal actions under However, a point of clarificationis Fish and Wildlife CoordinationAct). neededregarding these guidelines. It is NEPA. sincethese Policies and advice is further amplifiedin EIS. the recommendationsmade by Service This programsare likely to requirean 1981on the FWCA (8ath personnelthat would be measured SenateReport becluseacid rain hasbeen highlighted Session The (IRPI I againstthese standards. not the Congress,2nd [1958)). as an Important ResourceProblem that in some mitigation implementedby an action Congressrecognized by the Service,environmental analyses the Ievel of dollar benefitsto acid agency.The final policy makes this instances. which do not adequatelyaddress purposes to be partic-ular point explicit. some rright have rain problemswill receive "in I . Comment: Many commentorsargued diminished someslight degree"in attentionby Servicereviewers. Our wildlife that the proposedpolicy goesbeyond order to accomplishthe fish and commentsi^titt Ue technicallyreinforcei that authorized by law. Specific concern conservationobiectives of the Act. by Serviceresearch alreadY bgiog words However. policy issuanceshould conducted in this area. Since the policy was expressedover the use of ' I that were mandatoryin tone (e.9., benefit developmentdinterests. By already coversthis issue.no changeis "require" and "must") as opposedto providing developerswith a clear neceS9arv. policy In addition. sooe commented pich:re of Service mitigation concerrrs Commbnt: Could the mitigation advisory. a that the Service has no authority to and priorities, the policy will allow call for a recommendationas extreme River supportor opposeprojects as statedin developersto anticipateService refloodingof the Mississippi I prior to the policy. mitigation recommendations Vallev? Response:The Senriceagrees that the final decisionson project designand Eeiponse: The mitigation PolicY a legal authoritiesfor the mitigationpolicy location.By reducinga developer's would not lead to so extreme it doesnot do not authorizethe Serwiceto exercise planning uncertainties. the policy will recommendationbecause I veto power over land and water result in lowered project costsand aoplv to developmentactions complete authoritie development activities. That fewer proiect delays and con-tlicts. oiibi to enactmint of Service In understanding was inplicit in the Comment: Does the policy present br exemptedbv thoseauthorities. proposedpolicy. Appropriatechanges general guidance or minirnum required those sihirationiwhere the policy does I have been made in the policYto more standards?The Serviceappears to be apply, therewill be no recommendatior the level explicitly recogrrizeand sigrrify the trying to establishrequired standards. for mitication over and above advisory nature of the Service Response:The final policy sets out of impaits associatedwith a.proiect. responsibility. rnitigation goals and planning guidance This lolicy acts to minimize impactsof t However. it shouldbe clearly noted to guide the development of Serrrice 'proiects. not revene them. that the Figh and Wildlife Coordination mitigation recommendations.It doesnot Comment:Which aSencyenforces th I Act places clear nandatory require absolute sEict adherence to a policy and what power doesit have? I A7

I 76r,8 Federal Register I Yol.46. No. 1s / Friday, fanuary 23, 19g1 / Notices

fesponse: This is a policy that applies authorities, new mitigation computed for enhancementactivities. only to Service personnel.It does riot recommendationsmay be necessary. and the inclusion I predetennine of habitat the actions of other Not infrequently,pdrmit or licensL enhancernentfactors would provide Federalagencies, for nor the actionsof holdersuse the renewalprocess as a a more accurateestimate of the project's State agencies or developers.Although convenientoccasion to seekchanges in impact on the environment. the policy,statementis nbt their permits. Any changes permit ludicially- in or Response:Use of the term "habitat I enforceable. the Service will adrrinister licenseholders' activities have to be enhancement"to describe the policy by monitoringthe mitigation evaluatedto determinewhether development or not or improvement efforts recommendationsmade by its own they necessitatenew is confused by- mitigation this comment. personnel. recommendations. The mitigation policy doesnot cover enhancementag we t Comment: Too often land acquired for This policy, therefore,will be used by have describedit. However, mitigation doesnot provide the- the Service in permit or license renewal where habitat improvement spectrum of resource values previously proceedings,keeping in mind that or developmentcaused by a project will available becausethe managing Servicerecommendations are advisorv result in habitat value increases, agency'sphilosophy prevents if .hom to actionagencies. Appropriate changls it may be consideredas I mitigationwhen consistentwith ma_naglngthe land for a mix of goals. were made in the policy to reflect this the Response:Lands acquired foi position. resource category designation criteria mitigation purposesmust provide the Comment:Does this policy apply to and.the appropriate mitigation planning specificmitigation benefitsfor which man-inducedwetlands? goal. I they were intended.Secondarv land Response:Where the Service has the Comment:There should be a clear uses, such as provision of timber, oil and authority and responsibility to statementthat all opportunitiesfor gas exploration.or recreationalbenefits. recomruendmitigation for these enhancementof fish and wildlife should be attemptedwhere theseuses habitats,the tenetsof the poiicy shall resourcesbe thoroughly considered and I are compatiblewith the mitigation aPply. includedin projectplans to the extent lands' primary purpose.Thiiconcept Comment:There is a need for a feasible. has been added to the policy. mechanismfor evaluating enhancement Eesponse:We agree.Appropriate and a meaas to differentiate it from changeswere made. SPECIFICCOMMENTS ON THE mitigation. I MTNGATIONPOIJCY Eesponse:Although enhancementis lV, Definition of Mitigation (Thesecomments are keyed to an important concern of the Service, the Comment: Somecommentors sectionsof the proposedpolicy.J Servicemitigation policy shouldnot indicated concern over the definition of I. hrrpose serve as the primary vehicle for mitigation as used in the policy. Specific I discussingenhancement. Comment: Why is this policy The final concern was expressedthat those policy does apparently unconcerned with flora? differentiate between aspectsof project planningtbat include enhancement Response:Mitigating for frsh and and m.itigation avoidance or actions to minimize recommendations wildlife lossesnecessarily means dealing by defining impactsshould be congideredgood I with plant enhancementto include measureswhich project planning the communities on which and that mitigation ali would improve life indirectly depends.When fish and wildlife shouldbe confinedsolely to actionsto _animal resources habitat is preserved,it is the plant beyond that which would compensatefor resourcelosses. exist without the project and which communities that are the vasi bulk of Response:The Service agrees that cannotbe used to satisfuthe I the living material of that habitat. avoidance or actions to minimize mitigation planninggoal. As Plantsper,se are addressedby other ?ppropriate impacts should be part of the for evaluatingenhancement, it would early authorities of the Service which-are not design pnojects just appear likely that many of the of and not an ythi" the scope of this policy, such as afterthought. Some proceduresthat can be used to evaluate consider mitigation I the EndangeredSpecies Act ind to be a separateand distinct process asgociatedregulations. mitigation can be used to evaluate enhancemenL that occurg after project planning has lL Autbority Comment:What is the basis for the been completed,The legally binding definition No significant conments. policy position that enhaucenent cannot of mitigation as used in the I occur until regulations to implement the National Itr. Scope all losses are compensated? Th_ereis no legislative history for this. Environmental Policy Act [NEPA) can Comment:How does the policy affect Response: Unforhuately, the have the effect of altering this uotion proiects term already completed or rrnder "enhancement" suffels from wide througb incorporation of all those construction? I di.fferencegin semantic usage.Tte actions.that can lessen project inpacts Response: _ Appropriate changesin the proposedpoliry used the term to be throughout the planning process. Scope sectionhave been made to darifv synonymouswith improvements beyond The policy has been modified to nore policy coveragewith regard to thg srhigysErent of full mitigation. Ttis clearly state &at the Service supports completed projects I or prolects under strict interpretation appeared to spark and encouragesincorporation of constructiorl controversy. features that will reduce adverse Comment: Since Federal permit Tte final poliry incorporateg a impacts on fish and wildfife resourceg renewalg will result in no new efrects on di.fferentusage of the term. as part of early plaruring and proiect environmenl lhe they ehould be exempt Enhancemeutis used to describe desigrrin order to avoid delays or I from the policy. rDeasuresnot necessaly to accomplish conJlictg.But without the emphasis on Response: permit The or licenee nitigation purpoEes. avoidance and minimization provided renewal prrocesEprovideo an Comment:The poliry should credit by the NEFA regulations' defiqition" opportunity to re-evaluate the proiecl towards mitigation goals thore habitat there would be little incentive for I Depending on Bew gcientific infonnation value iacreasesageociated with areas of development-agencies to incorporate conceraing impactr. the adequacy of the habitat which are enhanced by the auch features.Tbe Serrrice,therefore. paat developer mitigation I effbrtg.-oruew proiecl Habitat value should be rupporta and adoptr rhat defirition. I A3 t Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23. 1981 / Notices 7&41 V. MitigatiooPolicy of the U.S.Fish ard see that any damageto thoseinterests is Eesponse:The Service fully supports Wildlifo Sen'ice preventedor mitigated. developmentof noveland imaginative I Comment:A numberof documentsare The Servicedoes and will attemPtto approachesthat mitigate lossesof fish referred to in the draft policy.They are fulfill its dutieswithin its authoritiesand and wildlife. their habitat. and uses essentialto the functioningof the policy in a reasonablemanner. It is certainly thereof.and has been in the forefrontof and should be publishedas an appendix cognizantof the fact that pursuingany suchdevelopment. No changeis I and otherwisemade availablefor public conceptto its logicalextreme may lead nece3sary. comment.including public hearings. to unreasonableness.and will continue Comment:An tndian tribe strongly happening the Departmentof the Interior': Response:The preambleto the to sFive to Preventthis from eupports qctivities. of the role of lndian tribal proposedpolicy cleariy indicatedthat in its mitigation recognition What does "equal governmentsin mitigation planning. the policy was designedto stand on its Comment: I consideration"of wildlife consewation Response:Our national heritageand, own. The referenceddocuments are not within the context of the Fish and in somecases. the livelihood of Indian essentialto the functioningof the policy. mean Act and this can be directly linked with the thoughService field Wildlife Coordination tribes. Foc instance.even policy? and use of fish and wildlif' personnelwill rely basicallyon the mitigation conservation Risoonse: "Eoual consideration"was resoruces.Therefore. the U.S.Fish and la Habitat Evaluation Procedures in not defined in the Act or this policy, and Wildlife Service will continue to conductingproject analyses.the policy has no particularmeaning in the context recognizeand supportlndian tribal indicates that other methodscan be of this policy. This policy only covers governments'efforts to mitigateimpacts used where appropriateand available. Servicerecommendations. not action on theseresources. lr The conceptof habitat value has been acencvreouirements. aod Wildlifs SenriceMitigatioo recogrr.izedthroughout the history of frsh "Coimeit proposedService B. U.S.Fish The Goalrby ResourcsCategory and wildlife manaSement.It is not new. policy now absolutelyprecludes support goals for the Regardlessof the fact that the policy for non-waterdependent proiects within Comment:The mitigation were characterized I standson its own, the referenced or affectingwaters of the United States. resourcecategories gFict. not sEict documents have undergonevarying This should be modified to conform to asl reasonable.too or degreesof public scrutinyindependent the requirements of Federal regulatory enough. was in the of the mitigation policy.For instance,a agenciessuch as the Army Corpsof Response:As explained policy, the I notice of availability and requestfor Engineers (COE) and the Environmental preambleto the draft resourcecategories and their mitigation public commentwas publishedin the hotection Agency BPA). Federal Register for the Serrice Response:The Servicepolicy clearly goaiswere abstractedfrom an analysis ManagementPlan and Program doesnot exerciseveto power over of actual field recommendations.The ManagementDocument on September deveiopmentactions. Moreover. the designation criteria for the tesource I categories(replaceability. scarcity, and 29, 198t)(45 FR 642714272). A habitat- Serrice will execute its responsibilities basedevaluation methodology has been fully within the context of existing laws value for evaluationspecies) are the under active development in the Service and regulations governing basic decisionfactors usedby Service since 1973.The fust documentoffrcially environmental reviews. However, the personnelto assessrelative mitigation I called the Hobitat Evaluation Servicefeels that wetlands and shallow needs.The mitigation goalsrepresent Procedureswas published in 197Swith water habitats shouldnot be subiected reasonablemitigation expectationsfor the most recent revision in 1980.During to needlessdevelopment because of the proiects, viewed in the light of our two' this 7 year period. the Nation's top public valuesof theseareas. The Service facetedgoal-(r) to conserye.protect I wildlife biologistshave beenconsulted, policy statementdoes not includewater and enhancefish and wildlife and their both within the govemment and outside. dependencyas the "sole" criterionfor its habitats,and (2) to facilitate balanced The proceduresbave beenpresented at recommendations.Other factors, developmentof our Nation's natural numerous public conferencesand have including the likelihood of a significant re3ource3. I been the subject of intense scrutiny. . loss. are consideredprior to a Service Numerouscomments were received Finally, the referenced documents recommendationfor suPPortof a project comrnendingus on tle balanced this policy. Sincr were made available to reviewerg. Over or the "no proiect" altemative. approachembodied in 75 requests were made and immediately The provisionsof the policy have its tenets derive from field frlled to allow commentorsthe full been modified to make such recommendationsand comrnentg.the t to our field staff. benefrt of this information in preparing reco--endadons discretionary. credit belongs entirely comments.including the group providing Comment Congress.not the Service. Some co--entors criticized the group this comment. Miuor changeswere is the entity that has the authority to mitigationgoals. One felt that onr goalswere made in the policy to more clearly require and fund compensationfor or severalof the mitigation I too strict. Thesecommentors obiected t indicate that tbe policy can stand on its Federalprojects. own. Eesponse:We aglee.The policy has what they consideredto be been modified. unreasonably high goals for fish and .L GeueralPrinciploc Comment:Mitigation shouldnot be wildlife mitigation. In contrast to this ls Comment: Rrrsued to its logical required for an indefinite period of time. frrst group,another set of commentors conclusion.the conceptof fish and Response:Mitigation is appropriate felt that the goalswere not strict wildlife as public tnrst resourcescould for the entire time period that habitat enouch.and called attention to our lead to serious restrictions on the use lossespersist, which includesthe life of legisLtiveresponsibility to seek IJ and managementof private lands. the project and as long afterwardsas protectionfor all fish and wildlife Response:When the concept of the impactsof the project continueto re90urces. personal property rights is exercisedin exist. The policy reflectsthis position. Our responseis that the mitigation professional such a way as to leopardizethe interests Comment:Under "General goalsrepresent the best I of the public in 6sh and wildlife Principles."the policy shouldseek and judgmentand cusrulativeexperience o resourceson public or private lands.the endorsenovel or imaginative Servicefield supervisorsin developing t government Eray use its authoriUesto approachesto mitigation. mitigationproposals that would satisfy I A9 7650 I Federal Regirt"t*L vg!. 46. No. rs / Friday. fanuary 23, 1981 / Notices our legislativemandates. operateunder theecosystem perspective, This is a to mitigationplanning. time and money consEainti, the authorities and assist difficult task. But humandecisions underlyingthis policy in maximizingovera.ll deal with fish and social well-being. concerningfish and wildlife resourcesin wildlife and their lne oaslcconcept. therefore. habitat. rather than is theface of a developmentaction require ecosystems. I unchangedin the final policy,although judgmentabout the valuesof what will Ecosystemsare addressedunder this minor changeswere made to improvE be lost and the need to avoid or policy in two ways. First. one criterion understandingbased on the comments. minimizeand compensate for loss of in the selectionof an evaluationspecies Comment:Rather than rely on strict gUCnValue9. inflexible is the biologicalimportance of the I mitigationgoals, the Service The specificcriteria for such "tradeofl' speciesto the functioningof its shoulduse evaluation determinationsare also exceedingly procedures ecosystem.Secondly, when habitat loss in developingmitigation difficult to frame in a National poliiy proposals. is mitigated.the part of the ecosystem context.The importanceof a speciei to Response:It is the responsibility comprisingthat habitat is itself I . of so.ciety^dependson a complex,changing - protected. theFed-eral No changeshave beenmade. action agencyto use mix of factors.The importanceof a traoeott Comment:Recreational use losses evaluationprocedures specieswithin an ecosystemis consistent also may at timeshave to be directlv with the Water Resources subjectto many dynamic factors. Council's But mitigated.The goal statements Principlesand Standards, humandecisions about the level and should I whereapplicable, reflect this need. to selecta mitigation typeof mitigation necessaryfor alternative We agree. that will assistin max]mizine developmentactions must be ,Response: Appropriate project made in cnangeswere overail benefits.The Fish and the absenceof perfectinformation made. Wildlife Comment: CoordinationAct specifiesthat concerniagthese factors. In In addition to assessins "the proiect addition. the conditions I plan shall includesuch Servicebiologist reviewing project of scarcity from a justifiable biogeographicalviewpoint, meansand measuresfor impactshas severeconshaints on i.e.. wildlife purposes the ecoregions, policy as the rcportine numberofspecies and ecosystem the should also use (emphasis jhoUa geopolitical ggency added)nnas linkagesthat can be analyzedgiven subdivisions.e.g., state be adopted boundaries. I to obtain als;jslrrm overail funditrg, personnel and time liiitations. project benefits." The role of the Service Somehow,choices must be made. _ Response:As a Federal agency,the is to representthose public trust We have deletedthe tersr ,.important Serviceperceives its maior resources under its iurisdiction. The sp.ecies"hom the policy and responsibilityto be to protect thosefish proposed-policy replacedit outlined a system wlth a more preciseterm. '.evaluation and wildlife and their habitat that are t wherein the highest valuable valued .Lsources species."The criteria for selection and scarceon a national level. would of be subjectto the most protective evaluationspecies still includes whether or not they transcendstate mitigation those recommendations.Few, if speciesofhigh resourcevalue to boundaries.However, should State any, conmentors have disagreedwith humansor that representa broader resourceagencies wish to outline t this valuation perspective.fherefore. no ecologicalperspective relative scarcityon a more local of an area.Other basis, changeswere personnel made. changeshave beenmade related to the Service would certainly However. many commentorshave detersrinationof resourcecategories to assist,whenever practicable. This point questionedthe reasonablenessofa allow for additional public inpit and has been added to the policy. s.eeminglyuncompromising I system that resourceagency coordination into Comment:Thepolicy shoujdscale the clld not appear such to allow occasional determinations,where appropriate. relative need to achievea particular deviations from thesegoals. The effect of this changi mitigation goal to the degree a particular The system is'not .. is not rifrd. As statedin intendedand shall not bi interpreted habitat will be impacted.For eiample, if tne ttr?ose section to I of the policy, the broadentbe scopeor extent of a half-acreof important habitat is policy advice will be r,_qsdas S,iia"""" applicatignof this policy. affectedby a project and it is part for Service But it does of a personnel.but vari"ations-- removethe implication one-acreplot, this circumstance appropriate that speciescan should to individual circumstances be ranked against lead to a mitigation recommendation are perrritted. eachother in tersrsof their overall importanceto societv. different from the situation where the I Commen E Numerous commeutorg which many consideredquite garre half-acre is part of a ten thousand raised the issue beylnd- of the somewhat the capability qf [rrmsn beincs. acre iuea. As drafted. the policy subiective nature does of identifying certain Comment:The wording policv not reflect the differences species a.g"qportant" of ihe in these for the purposes sh-ouldclearly indicate th-atspecies situations. I of the poliry. In addition, commentors gelected for ana.lysisshould dnty Ue Response:T'he Purpose section of the indicated that such distinctions could those demonstrated to actually irti[ze an policy statesthat it will be used as Iead to mis-classilicationof habitats in auea. guidance for Senricepersonnel. but terms of resourcecategories and that .Response:Weagree, except for variations appropriate to individual clear criteria were needed.Finallv. I situations where fish and wildlife circumstanceswill be permitted.The many comhentors felt that the arthcial restorationor improvementplans have relative needto achievea particular distinction of certain speciesas beenapproved by Stateor Federal mitigationgoal dependsprimarily on the "importanf' was both i violation of the resoruceagencies. ln that casethe perceivedvalue of the habitat, its public h.rst and Serice legal I analysiswill include speciesidentified scarcity,and the replaceabilityof the authorities. in suchplans. Appropriate Response: clarification threatenedhabitat. Other factors.such People perceive some bas been added to the specles to definition of as scalingconsiderations. can combine be more important than evaluationspecies. otherc. to nodify this general Service In the context bf biology and Comment:The proper I ecology, focus of the per:pectiveon what constifutes all speciesare impori-iat, policy should be the ecosystemrather appropriate uritigation oenring a ueeful purpoae wirhin &s than particular epecies. Comment: Tbe resource categories conlines of their biological niche. The Response:Aside ftom the very real and mitigation goals are general, lack mitigation policy muet addresgboth the technical problema of applying i definition, and provide no guidance on I needa aad deairer qf [nnan eoa,etyand conplex concepl cuchas the ecoaystem habitat value. Theee categorier are all I I A10 I Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23. 1981 / Notices 765 subiect to interpretationby the Service tnrcks.but it is good for crows and then improvedto support the species field personnel. buzzardsthat eat deadmeat. affectedby the proiect.It takes too long Response:It would be Response:The Servicehas not come and in the meantime.PoPulations I counterproductive.if not impossible,for acrossmany instanceswhere crows and supportedby the habitaton the proiect a national policy to be worded ag buzzardscould be consideredscarce. siteare lost. preciselyas the commentorsuggests and but when sucha circumstancecan be Response:lf the period requiredfor still be implementedin a reasonable documentedand verified.the Service improvingthe replacement habitat to th mannerunder numerousand diverse will certainly try to protectand enhance appropriatecondition was exceedingly I local circumstances.Words usedto valuablehighway habitat. long, this may be one indication that the at risk was unique or describeresource categories and . Resource Category I habitat mitigationgoals do have generally irreplaceableand actually belongedin understoodmeanings. It is essentialthat Comment:A literal interpretationof ResourceCategory 1. tn that casein-kint I field personnelbe allowed to exercise the ResourceCategory 1 mitigationgoal replacementtluough improvementof professionaljudgnent in applying would requireabsolutely no habitat lesserquality habitat would be an resourcecategories and mitigationgoals loss-not even a nature trail. Resource inappropriatemitigation to specificactivities. However. Category1 shouldbe deleted. recommendation.Also, additional I' numerousclarifying changeswere made Reioonse:Not all environmental measuresaimed at popu.lation basedon the commentsto increase chang'esare adverseto the habitat of a restorationcould be recommendedto comprehensionand understanding. fish and wildlife resource.If a nature restockthe area,provided suitable Comment:It is essentialto other trail resultedin an insignificantimpact habitat was available to supportthe agencies'review to know what general on habitat value that was determined stockedspecies. No changeswere madt l, not to be adverse,then the Service types of habitat will be most important Comment:One commenterwas in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serwice would not recommendagainst it. The perturbed by an apparently rigid policy to reflect this mitigation policy. At a minimum.some has been clarified insistenceby the policy of in-kind point. examplesof the typesof habitat within - replacementof lost habitat. The Endangeredand threatened I each categoryshould be given. Comment: commentorpointed out that therecould shouldbe includedas of Response:The frnal policy does give species Part be occasionsin which in-kind habitat Category1. guidanceon areasthat will be generally Resource was not available to a project sponsor. Response:It would be inappropriate consideredfor ResourceCategory 1 or 2. The policy guidelinefor to expand the scopeof the Mitigation Response: I hoviding exampiesfor all resource ResourceCategory 2 includesan Poiicy to include threatenedand categoriescould be misleadingsince the "' ' 'in-kind endangeredspecies. The treatmentof exceptionwhen same type of habitat may fall into physically or thesespecies is addressedin an replacementis not severaldifferent resourcecategories. biologicallyattainable". No changewar dependingon, amongother factors,its extensivebody of complexand detailed I legislationand regulation.The Congress nece9sary. scarcity and qualify from one relative Comment:The policy appears to insis the has legislatedvery specificand precise locale to another across nation, upon "acre-for-acre"replacement of in- On the other hand, field professionals law with regardto threatenedand habitat. are generally familiar with the quality endangeredspecies. lnclusion of these kind The policy does not insist I and abundance of a given type of speciesunder this policy would only Response: replacementof in- habitat that is in their area.so it is confusethe issueand compoundthe on "acre-for-acre" mitigationplanning preferablenot to burdenthem with difficulties involved in implementation kind habitat. The potentially inappropriateguidelines of of the EndangeredSpecies Act and its goals invoiving in-kind replacement of in- this nature. associatedregulations. Ot}ter reasons ipecifically ask for replacement I point Comment:The policy should clearly are discussedin the scopesection of the kind habitat value.This has been distinguishbetween upland habitats and final poliry. further clarified in the definitions policy, in tl the more valuablewetland habitats. Comment:For all practical purposes. section, throughout the and I Response:ln somecases, upland ResourceCategories 1 and 2 adopt a "no policy preamble. habitats may be detenninedto have -crowth" policv. . Resource Category3 resourcevalues egual to or greaterthan Resooise: fne U.S. Fish and Wildlife wetland habitats,so a policy that solely Serviie is not advocating a "no growth" Comment:The mitigation goal for favored one habitat type over the other mitigation policy. The means and ResourceCategory 3 is not authorized I by law and wiil be difficult to implemer would not be in the best public interest; rneasuresto achieve mitigation for However, the policy has been changed ResourceCategories 1 and 2 are due to professionaldisagreenent on to indicate that certain habitats within desigrredto provide someflexibility so satisfactoryachievement Senrice-identifred ImportantResource that limited growth can occur in an Response:Under the Fish and Wildli I hoblems (IRPsJand specialaquatic environmentally prudent manner. The CoordinationAct. the Servicehas the sites should be given special policy reflectsthe national consensus responsibilityto recommend considerationas ResourceCategory 1 or that somehabitats are of exceptional compensationfor the loss of fish and 2. The IRPs contain a predominanceof public value and shouldbe carefully wildlife resources.The Act doesnot li wetland coagtalareas. conserved.as evidencedin the Wild and resEict comPensationto in-kind Comment: If you build somethingin a ScenicRivers Act (Pub.L 9C5a2),the compensation.By recommendingout-o habitat. it iust changesit to another WildernessAct (hlb. L8f-.Sn). and the kind compensationunder certain habitat that someother animal or lish National Trails SystemAct (hrb. L s+- circumstances.the Sen'ice increasestl IJ lives in-including the human being, 527). rangeof options that developersmay the use to rritigate proiect impactsto although Serwicedoes not seem to . appreciatethat. For example.if you Resource Cotegory 2 include developmentand inprovemenr build a highway,it is bad for dogs. Comment: lt ig ill-advised to support of marginal resorrrcesdifferent hom I rabbits, opossumsand lield rats and in-kind replacement involving bading thoselost. However. modificationshar such that get run over by cars and habitat for lesservalue habitat which is been made in the policy to indicate tha I : I 7652 Federal I Register / vj! a6: No. 1E / Friday, fanuary 23, 1981 / Notices in-kind replacementis preferredfor C. Mitigation plnnaing procedurer ResourceCategory the life of a long-termoperation is not 3. 7. Mitigotion Goals possible. Comment: The mitigation goal for Comment:Developers, Federal Response:The policy statesthat the I ResourceCategory 3 should-emphasize net biological resource impact of a specific that in-kind habitat value replaiement agencies.and the public should is participatewith proiectproposal is the differencein preferableto out-of-kindreplacement. the Serviceand State agenciesin predictedhabitat value between the Response:We agree. point making ResourceCategory This has determinations future with the action and the future been broughtout in the and in developing I final policy mitigationproposals. without the action.This is basedon the statement. procedures Response:Developers. as well as establishedby the Water Com m ent: Although Resources principles out-of-kind other membersof the public,may Council's and replacementis acceptable Standards. for Resource provide information that will asjist The future witli the project Category3 lossesand. the determination I under certain Servicein making ResourceCategory includesconsideiati,on of circumstances,may be accepted lossesduring the -the for determinations.This opportunityhai life of the project. Resource.Category Z losses, Under the policy, policy beennoted in the final-policystatement. if the disturbid habitat snoulcladvlse against is of sufficientvalue replacementof Moreover,where theseparties' inputs for evaluation rare habitat types for more speciesto warrant a Resource I co[lmon will significantlyaid in developmint of Category- habitattypes. mitigationproposals 2 or 3 level determination.the Serviie that will will provide Response:We agree with the adequatelysa tisfu mitigalion planninr recommendationsfor,.no commentor'spoint - net loss" over the life project. and expectthat goals,the Servicewill welcome their of the The Servicefield personnelwiil recommend input. ability of the projectsponsoi to achieve I mitigation alternatives this goal dependson many factors that that incorporate CommenEIt is hooed that this cannot be predicted in concept.to the extent practicable. reclassificationof hibitats in Resource advance. ln manv The cases,it will be possible Service is entirely in fivor of Category3 to ResourceCategories to achievethis preserving 2 or 1 goal.No changewas necessary. -and/orpromoting habitat can be readily employedif and when I diversily. No changeswere necessary. certain Comment:ftre wittr and witlout habitats becomernore scarce. analysesshould make allowances . Resource Response:Resource Category for Categories 4 and 5 - humanactivities and nahtal species determinationsare made on thi basis of Comment: successionswhich can reasonably Compensationshould be conditionslikely to occurwithout the be included expectedto take place in the projlct I ae a means for satisfying the project.If thoseconditions later chance. atea. mitigation goal for ResourceCategory 4. the Resource Categoryof a given habltat We agree. Response: language can be redetermined. .Response: Appropriate , {ppropriate changeshave beenmade cnangesnave beenmade to allow However, in this policy. for once a mitigation plan in Comment:Many commentors suchrecommendations. connectionwith I a given project has disagreedwith the emphasisplaced Comment: on Habitats encomDassedbv beenagreed upon. the U.S.Fish and the Habitat Evaluotioi procedurcs Resource Categories4 and 5 ire the only Wildlife Servicewill not provide new or within the Service policy areaswherein additional IFIEP) significantincreases in recomnendationsexcept statement.Some commentors fish and wildlife under felt it I can be realizedthrouch limited circumstancer ouilioed shouldbe de-emphasized.whereas habita-timprovement. policy "r V"u tt u"iiil"ti8" in the under the scopesection. othersfelt it deservedfurther goals for these " emphasis. categoriesallow 2. Impact Assessment Response:Although referencec to the continual loss Methods of theseareas which more technicalaspects of HEP have possessgreat potential Comment:The policy does for not appear beendeleted. the methodologyitself I improvements to recogrrizethat development in carrying capacily. activities remainsone of the Service'smore may also show positive environmental ,Response:The Serviceappreciates the important impact assessmenttools. The effects.For example,cleared significanceof areaswith ielativelv lor,v- spaces policy doesnot recotrrmendexclusive power lines proviie e.xtgtinghabitat valueswith respecito Feneath can use of HEP, since time or resource I their potential for browsing areas for wildliie. Such carryins cap"citu conhaints may, in somecases. show positive effects should improvements.ln fact, thdseiyice mav be factored into alternativemethods to be more the mitigation asgessmentprocess. recommendimprovement of theseareas' practical. Where HEP habitat va-lue Respo4se:We habitat values to mitigate for - agree.Thil point has assessmentsdo not fully been included capture I unavoidablelosses in-Resource in the frnal policy important biological characteristics sta-tement.The final poliry Categories 2 and g. In addition, where further within a planning area. Service - indicatesthat theseareas are included in a proieci- the Serwiceand other personnelwill usesupplenental State data, planning area and are not apfroiriate and Federalresoruce agencies methodologies,and/or professional shall make the I for mitigation efforts, the Se'ri,icJwil determinatioriof whether judgmentto developappropriate recommend that all opportunities a biologicalchange constitutes a mitigationproposals.' for beneficial enhancementof theseareas or adverseinpact. However. Comment:What are the "other habitat be when thoroughly considered and detergrining miUgition needs for a evaluationsystems" alluded to in included in planning the I project plans. where practicable. area.the Serviced utili-" policy's gectionon impact assessment We have amended thesepolicy guidelinesto determine methods?This reference is very vsgue. the policy to whether include the above guidance. thesepositive effectscan be Response:Other systems can include appliedtowards Comment:Relrource mitication. the Habitat EvaluationSystem ftIES) Category 5 is CommenaThe drafl poficy confusing and umecess""y.'Ali indicates developedby the Departmentof the- I habitat "no net loss" as a goal for cirtain nas 8()mevalue. no Eatter Army, and the Instream Flow how low. It ResourceCategories but it is undear should be redefinedor in lncremental Methodology [IFM) of the deleted. defining the ri'ne period allowed Response: to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice. We agree.,llhia resource restore the laad to its original category value as Additional systens are referencedby I has been deleted from the final in the case of strip mining operatiorur. tbe Water ResourcegCouncil in a drift policy. Maintenance of "no net losC" througbout docunent entitled. "Analygis I of I I Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. fanuary 23. 19S1 / Notices ' r ' Wetland EvaluationProcedures" and transfer funds to the Service" as stronglysupported concurrent and other publications.This informationis mav be necessaryto conductall or part proportionatefunding. I not appropriatefor inclusioninto the of the investigationsrequired to carry Response:The Water Resources ' ' ' policy so no changewas made. out the purpoies of (Section2 of Council'sPrinciples and Standards Comment:If other methodologiesare the Act)." The Serviceuses these require of leost concumentand found to be more appropriatefor use transfer funds to conductproiect- proportionateimplementation with other I than the InstreamFlow Incremental specific investigations. maior proiect features.except where Methodology(IFIM) for measuringflow Comment:Requiring field biologiststo suchconcurent and proportionate impacts.they should be used. considercost-effectiveness in providing mitigation is physically impossible" Response:We agree.The final policy mitigation recommendationsis beyond (emphasisadded). does state.however, that consideration their capalrility and may conllict with We agree with the Council. and I shouldbe niven to the useof the IFM. the lead agencies'role as the determiner endorse expendifure of ftrnds at an Commeit: Hopefully, this policy will of overall public interest.Habitat earlier stageof proiect planningwhen stop the piecemealdestruction of protection should be a higherpriority this will lead to more effective valuablehabitat, especiallyin areaslike than cosGeffectiveness. mitigation.Appropriate changesto the l. the Florida Keys where insidiouslot-by- Response:The proposedpolicy did policy on this matter have beenmade' lot developmentcontinues in low not require a cost-effectivenesnanalysis Comment:Mitigation costsshould wetland siteswith the concurrenceof by Servicebiologists in a fomal sense. include the cost of managingthe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We fully agree that Service personnel acquiredland for the life of the project. l, Response:The Service does not must perceivetheir responsibilityto be and the value of present and future concrf with piecemealdevelopment analysis and recommendationsbased on timber and crops on acquiredland. tn where significant resourcelosses will the bioiogical aspectsof proiect addition. an environmentalbenefi t/cost occur.Cumulative impacts are proposals,There is no intent to require analysisshould be developedfor each addressedby this policy.The Serviceis Servicebiologists to do a formal proiect,and Congressshould not I to this loss of habitat and will economicanalysis for which they are sensitive authorizea project unlessthe project seekmitigation consistent with this not trained nor for which thereis clear plan includesthe proposedmitigation policy, No changewas necessary. legislativedirection. However, the proSramand all its costs,including the public Co m m en t: Pooulation information Servicehas a responsibilityto the cost of lost timber productivity and t shouldbe includedas an additional to give considerationto cost while other resources. factor in determining mitigation recommendingways to conseFrefish Response:Costing of proiectsis policy requirements. and wildlife. The has been determinedby the Water Resource for Response:We agtee.Although changedto reflect this need Council'sPrinciples and Standardsand I populationmitigation was an implicit considerationof other factors. is thereforebeyond the jurisdictionof action agencY part of the proposedpolicy, further Comment:The Federal this policy. We point out that Service languageclarifying this point has been should have the option ofnon-Service policy doesnot precluderi-ber harvest to developmitigation added to the final policy statement. expertise or other resourcerecovery operations or measulesin thoseinstances where the Commen t: Professionaliudgment mitigationlands when the activity is I Servicecannot meet lead agency should be usedas an altemativemethod compatible with fish and wildlife proSramrequirements. for assessingproject impacts. managementobjectives. We agree that this is a Response:Although the Service Response: Comment:The Service mitigation in usefor cannot preventother agenciesfrom valuable methodthat has been policy should more clearly note that fee I many years.It is difficuit to improveon utilizing biological expertisefrom non- simple land acquisitionshould be a and scientific Federalsoulces to developmitigation informed considered measureof last resort. judgment will plans, the Fish and Wildlife by an expert. The Service The policy statementhas CoordinationAct specificallyauthorizes Response: continueto rely heavily on this to more the Secretaryof the Interior to preparea undergonefurther modifrcation I approach.The policy was changedto when land report and recourmendationson the fish clearly stressthe conditions reflect this emphasis. by and wildlife aspectsof projects, acquisitionis to be recommended Mi tigo tio n Recommenda ti ons the 3. including mitigation. This report and Service personnel. In the funue. place greater Commen t: Service recommendations recommendationsare to receive"full Service wiU far emphasis I developing mitigation shouldbe timely. consideration"by the development on Response:The proposed and frnal agency.If the Federalaction agency recommendations that avoid. minimize. the policy specifically require Service involves the Service early and provides or rectifu impacts in order to reduce personnelto presentmitigation sufficient hansfei funds, then the need for compensationlands. ' ' point be seen I recommendations"' at the earliest Serviceshould be able to meet their Amplification of this may planning possiblestage of project planningto needs.No changein the policy was in the sectioir on mitigation assuremaximum consideration-"This necessary. Drocedures. point has been echoedthrougbout Comm en t: Several mitigation Comment:If someinterest in land Servicemanagement documents. Serwice proposalsshould be preparedfor each must be acquired,areas of marginal personnelcan generallyprovide timely alternative structural or uon-structural productivity should be consideredfirst. guidanceprovided developersmake a plan. Suchunderdevdoped land would point of notifying them of proposed Eesponse:The Service is willing to benefit from better managementof its projectsstill in the planningstage and preparemultiple proposalsprovided productivecapacity and respondmore provided Federalaction agenciessupply funds and time are available. vigorouslythan land already at higher gufficient hansfer flrnding with which to Comment:Some co--entors felt that levels of production. conduct environmental investigations. concrurent and proportionate funding of Response:We agreethat sPecial Under Section2(e) of the Fish and mitigation may not always lead to considerationshould be given to Wildlife Coordination AcL Federal optimal mitigation and shouldnot be a marginallands. and bave changedthe action agenciesare authorizedto rigid requirement. Other couulentonr policy accordinglY. A15 76il I Ed.r.l Register / vol. 46. No. 1s / Friday, |anuary 23. 1981 / Notices

, Comment: Who owns land acquired habitat lost or degradedand uray even for mitigation purposes? mitigation.which has been adoptedin reducewildlife habitat and invite this policy, clearly statesthat mitigation I R.esp.onse:.Dependingon the degradation . by making an area more lnqrvrctual includes". . . avoiding the impact cucumstancesof the proiect. accessibleto Eore people.ConsEuction land.acquired altogetherby not taking a certain action throughfee-sinple Utie is of public use facilities may be in the usually or parts of an action.. . ." Obviously,a owned either by the Fideral or public interest but shouldnot be ,.No State government mitigationrecommendation of I and idmjnistered bv disguisedas mitigation for loss or proiect" falls under this subset appropriateFederal or Stateresource of the degradationof wildlife habitat.This definition,since a proiect's agencies.Where wildlife easements impact can are point has been added to the policy. be avoidedoltogetherby acquired,the land belongsto the a deiision not 4. Follow-up to constructa project. I property own€r, and the easementright to the Federal or State goverruuenr. Comment:The Service should initiate Appendix C _ Commen L. The policy-sbould require post-projectevaluation studies, as well Comment:The definition of the word sernce personnelto identify the as encourage,support a-ndparticipate in "practicable" should be "-ended to authority to be used in impllmeuting thesestudies. denote that the burden of identifying I any mitigationrecommendations that Eesponse:We agree and will do so ',rte, alternative mitigation rueasluesindof are made. within the constraintsof personnel conducting a searching inquiry Response:The into their final policv clearlv and cost. The Service will initiite practicabilityrests with tbe identifies Serviceas the legal authoritils under additional follor^r-upstudies when funds well as the Federalaction agency. which the Service I is expectedto are provided by the Federalaction Response:The policy indicatei that develop mitigationrecommendations. In agency.-Thepoiiry has beenchanged to the Service will strive to provide addition, the policy- only applies to reflect this. mitigationrecommendations that sernce recornmendations Comment: and is not an Follow-up shrdies must be representthe best judgmentof the instrument directing legal designedso as to eeparate t research in the effectson Senriceon the most effective means and hcuvtctual crrcumstances.It would be fish and wildlife populations of measuresto achievethe inap.prop-riate mitication coal. to instruct our personnel irnplementingmi tigation includingconsideration to id.entifythe of colt. implementingiuthority recommendationsfrom other causesof Comment:A definition for the development changes loy agencijs which ire in speciesnumbers. This has "developments"(as usedin Section I fully aware of the authoritiesavailable not beenthe casein past studies. V.A., "GeneralPrinciples") to implement shouldbe Servicerecommendations. Response:We agree in principle. but providedin Appendix ln C. the caseofproiects to be authorized point out that this is a very difficult task Eesponse:"Development" by Congress, is a authoritiesto implement technically,and that the conclusionsin g.eneral-purpose-temr mitigation_can encompassing I be, and increasingly have this,regardrarely withstand vigorous thoseactivities falling been,speUed under'thesc6pe out. anarysur. of Servicemitigation authorities The policy citei . !.onne.nt neglects to Nonetheless.distinguishing the true within this policy. For example, timls1 rnolcate.thenecessary process causes population if if an of changesshould be harvesting activities require-preparation agency does not agree with Seryice one of the goals I of the follow-up srudv. of an EIS,or involveswaterrof ihe U.S. miti ga tion recommenda tions. The policy -Commena should indicaie and requiresthe issuanceof a Federal Response:This processhas already what actionswould , occur if -post-project permit or license,the Servicewould been establishedfor most Federal evaluation shows mitigation provide mitigationrecommendations agencies_.If the project plannersand the recommendationsare not being I Servicefield office consistentwith the policy. cannot agreeon a achievedas agreedto by the dEveloper. modified or substitutepropoial NATI O NAL for . Response:We agree.The policy nbw EI\TVIRONMEIITAL mitigation,the matter ofteir is referred rnductesprovisions insbucting Service POUCY ACT REQUIREMENTS u_pwardsto the next highest level. personnel to recoumend corrJctive The Servicehas preparedan I Higher managementlevels are theu action ia such situations. Environmental Assessmentof this final generallyable to resolvethe isgue AppendixA policy. Basedon an analysisof the quickly, although the Federal action .agency Environmental Assegsmenl the Director has the final say. No changewas No significant comments. of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seiyice I necessary. AppendixB hag Comment:Mitigation concluded that the final action is not a Comment:Why not include more major Federal action which would recommendations should ensure that intensivemanage'nent of remaining significantly affect the quality habitats which are presenredare of the habitat as a way of reducingnet b;bitat human environment withi! the sdequate in size and contiguous to meaning I loss? of Section102(2)(c) of the National ensure speciessunrival and ecosystem Response:We agree,and have Environrnental Policy Act of 1969(42 functioning. m-odifiedttre policy accordingly Re-sponse: in the U.S.C.4321-4347). Thus the policy does We agree.This point has Means and Measures section. which not, however, has not require an Environrnental lmpact been added to the policy sincebeen integrated into the I since it body of StatementIEISJ. is standard operating proiedure the final poliry. at the lield level. The Environmental Assessmentand The sectionclearly placespriority on Comment Improvement . litdi"g of No Significant Impact will be of public uae urcreagedhabitat manageEentas a prospects within a project furnished upon request. area should Eeans of replacingbabitat losses.and t not be-consideredmitigation for habitat REGT'I"ATORYANALYSIS adlitionally sEessesuse of existing value IosEes.Development of public public lands to accomplishthese eids. This policy etatementhag been issued acceEsir. legitimate mitigation only Comment:A mitigation wnen public in conformity with the Department of ulresare lost as a result of reco--endation of "No proiect'. proiect is uot the hterior's rulemaking requirements, I action logical or valid as a mitijatibn measure. which apply to actiong6ggring the Response:We aFee Conshrction of Response: l|'he Council on broad definition of a ruIe set fdnh iu tle public accessfacilities doesnot replace Environrnental I Quality'e defiaition of Adrninigbative hocedures AcL 5 U.S.C. I A14 I Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. rs / Friday, fanuary 23, 1981 / Notices 76s5 551(a)and 43 CFR Part 1a.2(e)(1980). This statementis not inteDdedto.be iudicially enforceable.It will not be I codified. It does not cseateprivate riglrts. lt only guides internal Service adminisbation and is not to be inllexibly applied by Service personnel. I The Deparhent had previously determined that the proposedpolicy wag not a significant rule and did not require a regulatory analysis under I Executive Order 120,14and lg Part 14. No significant changeswere made in the final policy that required a new determination. l{ ACKNOWITDGEMENTS t The primary author of this frnal policy is fohn Christian. Leader,Policy Group-EnvironmenL U.S. Fish and lr Wildlife Service, (2OZ)343.7751. Primary eupportfor policy developmentwas provided by policy analysts Nancy Chu. Scott Cameron, and Peter Ciborowski: I and Ecological ServicesWashington Office and field personnel.Manuscript preparation was accomplishedby Roberta Hissey, Karen Baker, Carol I hescott, and finethel Baynes. Accordingly, the mitigation policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildbfe Service is set I forth as follows: I I I I I l] tr I I I I A15 76s6 Federal Register I Yol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23, 1981 / Notices

U.S. FTSHAND WILDUFE SERVICE licensewhich would impound.divert, requiringa federally issuedpermit or I MMGATION POUCY deepen.or otherwisecontrol or modify a licensethat would impact waters of the I. PURPOSE streamor otherbody of water and to U.S.;(2) all maiorFederal bctions makemitigation and enhancement significantlyaffecting the quality of the This documentestablishes policy for recommendationsto theinvolved humanenvironment: and (3) other Wildlife I U.S.Fish and Service Federalagency. "Recommendations . Federalactions for which the Service recommendationson mitigatingthe shallbe as specificas practicablewith has legislativeauthority or executive adverseimpacts of land and water regpectto feahuesrecommended for directionfor involvementincluding. but deveiopmentson wildlife. fish, their wildlife conservationand develooment. not limited to: coal. minerals.and outer habitats.and usesthereof. It will help to lands to be utilized or acquiredfor such continentalshelf leasesales or Federal I assureconsistent and effective programs purposes,the resultsexpected. and shall approvalof Statepermit for recommendationsby outlining policy for describethe damageto wildlife the control of dischargesof dredgedor the levels of mitigation neededand the attributableto the project and the fill material. various methodsfor accomplishing measuresproposed for mitigatingor mitigation.It will allow Federalaction B. Exclusions I compensatingfor thesedamages." In agenciesand private developersto addition.the Act requiresthat wildlife This policy doesnot apply to anticipate Servicerecommendations and conservationbe coordinatedwith other threatenedor endangeredspecies. The plan for mitigation measuresearly, thus requirementsfor threatenedand avoiding delays and assuringequal featuresof water resourcedevelopment I programs. endangeredspecies are coveredin the considerationof fish and wildlife EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973and resourceswith other project feahrres Determinationsunder this authority projectslocated in estuarine accompanyingregulations at 50 CFR and purposes.This poiicy provides for specific ,1o2. areasconstitute compliance with the Parts17, and 424.Under Section7 of guidancefor Servicepersomel but the EndangeredSpecies Act, as I variations appropriateto individual provisionsof the EstuaryProtection Act. (SeeAppendix A.) amended,all Federalagencies shall circumstancesare permitted. ensurethat activities authorized. This policy supersedesthe December Watershed Protection and Flood PreventionAct (76U.S.C. 1001-1009). funded,or carried out by them are not 78,\974, policy statemententitled jeopardize This Act allows the Secretaryof the likely to the continued t "Position Paperof the Fish and Wildlife existenceof listed speciesor result in Interior to make surveys.investigations, ServiceRelative to Lossesto Fish and the destructionor adversemodification Wildlife Habitat Causedby Federally and ". . . preparea report with recommendationsconceming the of critical habitat. Mitigating adverse Plannedor ConstructedWater Resource impacts a project would not in itself conservationand developmentof of Developments"and the ServiceRiver viewed as satisfactoryagency I wildlife resources. . ." on small be Basin StudiesManual Release2.350 with 7. Furthermore. watershedprojects. compliance Section entitled "General BureauPolicv on River it is clear to the Servicethat Congress National Environmental Policy Act of Basin Studies." consideredthe traditional conceptof 1969 U.S.C.43214342). This Act and {42 mitigation to be inappropriatefor I II. AUTHORITY its implementingregulations (40 CFR Federalactivities impactinglisted 150G1508)requires that the U.S. This policy is establishedin Part speciesor their critical habitat. accordancewith the following major Fish and Wildlife Servicebe notified of This policy doesnot apply to Service authorities:(See Appendix A for other all maior Federalactions affecting lish recommendationsfor Federalpnojects I authorities.) and wildlife resourcesand their views completedor other proiectspermitted or Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956(76 and recommendationssolicited. Upon licensedprior to enactmentof Service U.S.C.7a2(a)-754). This Act authorizes completionof a draft Environmental authorities(unless indicated otherwise the developmentand distribution of fish Impact Statement.the Serviceis in a specificstatutel or specifically t and wildlife information to the public. requiredto review it and make exemptedby them and not subiectto Congress,and the Presidenland the commentsand recommendations,as reauthorizationor renewal.It also does developmentof policiesand procedures appropriate.ln addition. the Act not apply where mitigation plans have that are necessaryand desirableto providesthat "the Congressautlorizes already been agreedto by the Service, I carry out the laws relating to frsh and and directs that. to the fullest extent exceptwhere new activiUesor changes wildlife including:(1) ". . . take such possible. . . all agenciesofthe Federal in current activities would result in new stepsas may be requiredfor the Governmentshall. . . identifu and impactsor where new authorities.new development.advancement. developmethods and procedures. . . scientificinformation. or developer I management.conservation. and which will ensure that presently failure to implementagreed upon protectionof the fisheriesresources:" unquantified environmentalamenities recommendationsmake it necessary. and (2) ". . . take such stepsas may be and valuesmay be given appropriate Servicepersonnel involved in land and required for the development. considerationin decisionmakingdong water developmentinvestigations will management.advancement. with economicand technical make a judgmentas to the applicability I congervation.and protectionof wildlife considerations." of the policy for mitigation plans under resourcesthrough research. . . and uI.scoPE developmentand not yet agreedupon ag other means." of the date of final publicationof this Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act A. Coverage policy. I (16U.S.C. 661-867(e)). This Act This policy appliesto all acti,ritiesof Finally, this policy doesnot apply to authorizesthe U.S.Fish and Wildlife the Servicerelated to the evaluationof Servicerecommendations related to the Service,National Marine Fisheries impactsof land and water developments enhancementof fish and wildlife Service(NMFS), and State agencies and the subsequentrecommendations to regources.Recommendations for t responsiblefor fish and wildlife mitigatethose adverseimpacts except measureswhich irnprove fish and resorrrcesto investigateall proposed as specificallyexcluded below. Ttis wildlife lesourcesbeyond tbat which Federal undertakingsand non-Federal includes:(1) investigationsand would exist without lhe project and t actions needinga Federalpermit or recommendationsfor all actions which cannot be used to satisfy tbe I A*ut I Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, fbnuary 23. 1981 / Notices appropriatemitigation planninggoal PROVIDETHE FEDERALL&IDERSHIP TO developmentof ecologicaldesign AND EN}TANCE outlines specific should be consideredas enhancement CONSERVE"PR,OTECT information that F'ISHAND WILDIJFEAND THEIR and measuresfor measures.The Servicestrongly supPorts practicablemeans I HAEITATSFOR THE CONTINUING lvoiding or minimizing impacts.The enhancementof fish and wildlife BENEFTTOF THE PEOPLE can be used by developersto site The Servicewill recomrnend former resources. The goal of Serviceactivities oriented proiectsin the leastvaluable areas' This that all opportunitiesfor fish and toward land and water develoPment iouid possiblylower total proiectcosts resourceenhancement be wildlife respondsto Congressionaldirection that to developmentinterests. These actions I and includedin thoroughiyconsidered fish and wildlife resourceconsenration are part ofgood planning and are in the practicable. project plans,to the extent receiveequal considerationand be bestpublic interest. coordinatedwith other featuresof IV. DEFINITION OF MMGATION The earl.y provision of informotion to Federalresource develoPment and private and public agenciesin a form I on tory proSramsthrough effective The President'sCouncil regula which enables them to avoid or planning,development' Environmental Quality defined the term and harmonious minimize fish ond wildlife lossesas a "mitigation" in the National maintenanceand coordinationof fish part of initiol proiect design is the wildlife resourceconservation and Environmental Policy Act regulations to and preferred form of fish ond wildlife I include:"(a) avoiding the i.mpact rehabilitationin the United States'its goal conservation altogetherby not taking a certain action territoriesand possessions.The is B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sewice or parts of an action: (b) minimizing to: Mitigation planning Goals by Resource by limiting the degreeor CONSERVE.PROTECT AND ENHANCE impacts Category I magnitudeof the action and its FISH AND WILDIJFEAND THEIR implementation;(c) rectifyingthe impact HABITATS AND FACILITATEBAI.ANCED The planninggoals and guidelines DSVH.OPMENTOF THIS NATION'S by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring that follow will be used to guide Service NATURAL RESOURCESBY TIMELY AND on mitigationof the affected environment (d) reducing OF F1SHAND recommendations EFFECTTVEPROVISION imoacts.Four Resource I or eliminating the impact over time by WILDUFE TNTOR,VATIONAND oroiect'Catecoriei to indicatethat the preservationand maintenance RECOMMENDATIONS. are used leveiof mitigationrecommended will be operations during the life of the action; Fish and wildlife and their habitats consistent with the fish and wildlife and (e) compensatingfor the impact by are public resourceswith clear tesourcevalues involved. I replacingor providing substitute commercial.recreational. social, and The policy coversimpacts to fish and resourcesor environments." (,10CFR ecologicalvalue to the Nation. They are wildlife populations.their habitat and 1508.20(a-e)). conservedand managedfor the people Part the human usesthereof. However, the Federaland lndian tribal The Service supports and adopts this by State, primary focus in terms of sPecific If land or water I definition of mitigation and considers Governments. guidanceis on recommendationsrelated developmentsare proposedwhich may the specificelements to representthe to habitat value losses.ln many cases' reducee1 glimin3[s the public benefits desirablesequence of stepsin the compensationof habitat value losses that are provided by such natural mitigation planning process.(See shouldresult in replacementof frsh and resources,then State and Federal I Appendix B for definitious of other wildlife populations and human uses. resourceagencies and lndian tribal important telTtrsnecessary to But wheie it does not, the Service will agencieshave a responsibilityto undergtand this policy.] recommendappropriate additional recommendmeans and measuresto meangand measures. V. MITIGATIONPOLICY OFTHE U.S. mitigate suchlosses. Accordingly: I RESOT,JRCECATEGORY 1 FISHAND WILDLIFESERVICE IN TI{E INTERESTOF SERVINGTHE PUBUC.TT IS THE POLICYOF THE U.S. a. DesigpationCriteria The overall goals and objectivesof FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICETO SEEK Habitat to be impactedis of high the Service are outlined in the Service LOSSESOF F'ISH. TO MTTIGATE value for evaluationspecies and is I Management Plan and an accompanying WIDLIFE. T}IEIR }IABITATS. AND USES unique and ireplaceable on a national Important Resourcehoblems document T}IEREOFFSOM I"{ND AND WATER basis or in the ecoregionsection. which describes specific fish and DSVELOPMENTS. wildlife problems of importance for In administering this policy, the b. MitigatiouGoaI I planning purposes.Goals and objectives Service will sEive to provide No Losg of Existing Habitat Value. information and reco-mendations that for Service activities related to land and c. Guideliaa water development Euecontained in the fully support the Nation's need for frsh The Service will reco--end that all Habitat Pregervation hogram and wildlife resotuce consenration as lossesof existinghabitat be prevented t Management Document. The mitigation well as soundeconomic and social as theseone-of-a-kind areas cannot be policy was designedto stand on its owu developmentthrough balanced multiple Nation's natural resoruceg. replaced.Insigrrificant changes that do however. these documentgwill be use of the The Service will actively seek to not result in adverseimpacts on habitat consulted by Service personnel to facilitate neededdevelopment and value may be acceptableprovided they I provide the proper perspective for the no significant cumulative avoid conJlicts and delays through early will have poliqy. They are Service mitigation involvementin land and water inpact. available upon requesthom the development planning activitieg in RESOTJRCECATEGORY 2 Director. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. advanceof proposalsfor specific I Waehington,D.C.2O2n. proiects or during the early planning and a. DerignatioaCdtorir to be imPactedis of high ,{. General Policy designstage of specificproiects. Habitat Tf,is should include earlY value for evaluationspeciea and is The miseion of the U.S. Fish and identificationof resourceareas relatively scaaceor becoming scarce on I Wildlife Service ig to: containing high and low habitat values a national basig or in the ecoregion sPeciesand the gectiott- t for inportant I A1? f\I / I 7658 Federal Register i Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23. 19€t1 / Notices

b. Mitigation Goal It is preferable.in most cases.to developcompatible approaches and to No Net Lossof In-Kind Habitat Value. recommendways to replacesuch avoid duplicationof efforts. I habitat value lossesin-kind. However.if c. Guideli.Be 2. ResourceCategory Detemrilatiour the Servicedetermines that in-kind The Servicewill recommendwavs to replacementis not desirableor possible, a. The Servicewill make Resource avoid or minimizelosses. If lossesire then other specificways to achievethis Categorydeterminations as part of the I likely to occur,then the Servicewill planninggoal include:(1) substituting mitigationplanning process. Such recommendways to immediatelyrectify differentkinds of habitats.or (2) determinationswill be made earlv in the them or reduceor eliminatethem over increasingmanagement of different planningprocess and transmittedto the time. If lossesremain likely to occur, replacementhabitats so that the value Federalaction agencyor private then the Servicewill recommendthat of thelost habitatis replaced.By developerto aid them in their proiect I those lossesbe compensated planning,to the extent practicable. by replacinghabitat value losseswjth replacementof the samekind of habitat differenthabitats or increasing b. ResourceCategory determinations value so that the total loss of suchin- managementof differenthabitats. will be made throughconsultation and kind habitat value will be eiiminated. populationsof specieswill be different, coordinationwith Stateagencies I Specific.waysto achievethis planning dependingon the ecologicalattributes of responsiblefor fish and wildlife goal include:(11 physical modificationol the replacementhabitat. This will result resourcesand other Federalresource particularly replacementhabitat to convertit to the in no net lossof totalhabitat value. but agencies, the National same type lost; (2) restorationor may resuit in significantdifferences in Marine FisheriesSeryice and the I rehabilitation of previouslyaltered fish and wildlife populations.This is EnvironmentalProtection Agency, habitat (3) increasedmanagement of generallyreferred to as out-of-kind wheneverresourcelr of concernto those similar replacementhabitat so that the replacement. groupsare involved.Where other in-kind value of the lost habitat is elementsof the public. including I replaced,or (4Ja combinationof these RESOI,JRCECATEGORY 4 developmentgroups, have inforuration measures.By replacinghabitat value a. DesigpationCriteria that can assistin making such losseswith similar habitat determinations.the Servicewill values. Habitat to be impactedis of medium populationsof species welcomesuch information. associatedwith to low value for evaluationspecies. that habitat may remain relatively c. All ResourceCategory I stable in the area over time.This is b. MitigationGoal determinationswill contain a technical generallyreferred to as in-kind Minimize Lossof Habitat Value. rationale consistentwith the desicnation replacement. criteria.The rationale will: (1) outiine c. Guideline Exceptions: An exception can be the reasonswhy the evaluationspecies I made to this planninggoal when: (1) The Servicewill recommendwavs to were selected:(2) discussthe value of different habitats and speciesavailable avoid or minimize losses.If lossesire the habitat to the evaluationsoecies: for replacementare determinedto be of likely to occur, then the Servicewill and (3) discussand contrast the relative greatervalue than thoselost, or(Zl in- recommendways to immediatelyrectify scarcity of the fish and wildlife resource I kind replacementis not physicallyor them or reduceor eliminatethem over on a national and ecoregiongection biologically attainable in the ecoiegion time.If lossesremain likely to occur, basis. eection.In either case.reDlacement then the Servicemay make a Note.-lf theState agency responsible for involving different habitit kinds mav be recommendationfor compensation, fishand wildlife rcsources wishes to outline I recommendedprovided that the total dependingon the significanceof the scarcityon a morelocal basis, U.S. Fish and valueof the habitatlost is recommended potentialloss. WildlifeService personnel should assist in for replacement(see the guidelinefor However.because these areas possess developingsuch rationale. whenever Category3 mitigation below). relatively low habitat values,ttre! witt practicable. I RISOURCECATEGORY 3 likely exhibit the greatestpotential for d. When fi.rnding,personnel, and significanthabitat value improvements. available informationmake it a. DeeipationCriteria Servicepersonnel will fully investigate practicable,specific geographic areas or, Habitat t9 be impactedis of high to theseareas' potential for improvement, alternatively,specific habitat types that medium value for evaluationspeiies since they cou.ldbe used to mitigate comprise a given ResourceCategory I and is relatively abundanton i national ResourceCategory 2 and 3 losses. shouldbe desipated in advanceof basis. development.Priority for predesignation G. Mitigatiou Planning Policies b. MitigatiooGoal will be placed on those areas that are of 1. State-FederalParbership high value for evaluationspecies and No Net Loss I of Habitat Value While are subjectto developmentpressue in Minimizing a. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lossof In-Kind Habitat the aear future.Such predesignations Value. will fully coordinateactivities with thoseState agenciesresponsible for fish ca r be usedby developersor regulators c. Guideline and wildlife resources,the National to determinethe least valuable areasfor I The Servicewill recommendways to Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and ur.ein projectplanning and siting avoid or minimize losses.lf lossesare the Environ-oental Protection Agency crnsiderations. likely to occur, then the Servicewill (EPA)related to the investigationof e. The following examplesshould be given recommendways to immediatelyrectify projectproposals and developmentof specialconsideration as either I them or reduce or eliminate them over mitigationrecommendations for ResourceCategory 1 or 2: (1) time. If lossesremain likely to occur. lesourcesof concernto the State,NMFS Certainhabitats within Service- then the Servicewill recom.mendthat or EPA. identified lmportant Resourcehoblem (IRP) areas. with thoselosses be compensatedby b.-Servicepersonnel will place Those IRPs dealing special threatenedor endangeredspecies are I replacementof habitat value so that the emphasison working with State not covered this policy. total loss of habitatvalue will be agenciesresponsible for fish and by [SeeScope) (2) Specialaquatic and terrestrialsites eliminated. wildlife resources,NMFS and EPA to I includinglegally designatedor set-aside I A18 Notices 7659 I Federal Register I YoL 46. No. 15 / Friday. fanuary 23. 1981 / of the appropriateFederal areas such as sanctuaries.fish and rL Mitigation Recommendations responsibility to implementor enforce; wildlife managementareas. hatcheries, a. The ServicemaY recommend action agency (2)*ould providefor a durationof and other aquaticsites such supportof proiectsor otherproposals and I and refuges. for the life of the proiect wetlands.mudfl ats. when the following criteria are met: effectiveness as lloodpiains, plus suchadditional time requiredfor coral reefs.riffles (1) They are ecologicallYsound: vegetatedshallows. ihe adverseeffects of an abandoned and poois,and springsand seePs. (2)The leastenvironmentallY damagingreasonable alternative is 'proiect to ceaseto occur. I 3. Inpact AssessmeotPrlociPles selected: e. Landacquisition in fee title for the DurDoseof compensationwill be a. Changesin fish and wildlife (3) Every reasonableeffort is made to recommended6y the Serwiceonly under productivity or ecosystemstructure and avoid or minimizedamage or loss of fish uses; one or more of the following three function may not resuit in a biologically and wildlife resoutcesand I to (a) AII importantrecommended means conditions: adverseimpact. The detenninationas have beenadopted with (1) When a changein ownershiPis whether a biologicalchange constitutes and measures guaranteedimPlementation to necessaryto guaranteethe future an adverseimpact for which mitigation iatisfactorily compensatefor conservationof the fish and wildlife be recommendedis the should unavoidabledamage or loss consistent resourceconsistent with the mitigation I of the Serviceand other responsibility with the appropriatemitigation goal: goal- for the specificproiect area;or involved Federaland Stateresource and (2) When other meansand measures agencies. (5) For'wetlandsand shallow water foi mitigation (seeSection 5 below) will b. The net biologicalimPact of a habitats. the proposedactivity is clearly not compensatehabitat losses I developmentproposal (or alternatives) water dependentand thereis a consistentwith the mitigationgoal for is the differencein predictedbiological demonstratedpublic need. the specificproject areaior conditions between the future with the The Servicemay reconrmendthe "no (3)-WhenIand acquisitionin fee title action and the future without the action. Droiect"alternative for thoseprojects or is ihe most cogt-effectivemeans that the I If the future without the action cannot bther p.oposalsthat do not meet all of may partially or completelyachieve goal proiect be teasonably predictedand the above criteria and where thereis mitigation for the specilic documentedby the proiectsponsor, then likely to be a sigrrificant fish and area. recommendationsfor fee title the Serviceanalysis should be basedon wildlife resourceloss. Service land acquisitionwill seekto identify I biologicalconditions that would be b. Recomrnendationswill be earliest rritigation lands with marginaleconomic expectedto eist over the presentedby the Serviceat the Planning proiectplanning to potential. period due to natural speciessuccession possiblestage of - consideration.The f. First priori$ will be given to or implementationof aPProved issure maximum Service will strive to provide mitigation recommendationof a mitigationsite I restoration/improveroentplans or within the planning area. Second recommendationsthat representthe condiUons which currently exist in the best judgmentof the Service,including -ofpriority will be given to recomnendation planning area. considerationof cost,on the most a mitigation site in proximity to the c. Serrricereview of proiect impacts effective means and measuresof olanningarea lvithin the same ecoregion given I will consider.whenever practicable: satisfactorily achieving the mitigation iection.-third priority will be to (1) The total long-termbiological planning goal.Such recommendations recommendationof a mitigationsite impact of the proiecl including any witt Ue developedin cooperationwith elsewherewithin the sameecoregion secondary or indirect impacts regardless the Federalaction agencyor private section. I of locatioru and (2) any cumulative developerresponsibie for the project. g. Service personnel will fully support effects when viewed in the context of wheneverpracticabie, and will piace a variety of useson mitigationlands compatiblewith edsting or anticipated Proiects. heavy relianceon cost estinates where suchuses are fish and wildlife uses and. for d. The Hobitat Evaiuotion Procedures provided by that Federalaction agency dominant wildlife refuges,are consistent I will be used by the Service as a basic or private developer. Federal with the provisions of the Refuge tool for evaluating prolect impacts and i. rle Serwicewill recommend that Recreation Act and the National as a basis for formulating subsequent the Federal action agency include wildlife Wildlife Refuge Administration Act. recommendations for mitigation subject desicnated funds for all frsh and (including, not However, it may be in the best public to the exemptions in the Ecological reso-urceoitigation but I investigation costs' interest to recommend limiting certain Services Manual (1m ESM 1). When the linited to, Senrice development costs and continuing uses that would sigrrificantly decrease Habitat Evaluation Procedures do not initial maintenance.replacement. habitat value for speciesofhigh public apply, then other evaluation systens operation, and administrative costs) as part of the interest. In such cases,the Service may may be used provided such use t initial and any alternativeproiect plans recommend a.Sainstsuch incompatible confomrs with policies provided herein. and that mitigation funds (as authorized ugeg. where instream e. In thoge cases and appropriated by Congressfor h. Meaguresto increaserecreation flows are an important detersrinant of Federalproiects) be speutconcurrently values will not be recommendedbY I habitat value. considerationshould be and proportionatelywith overall project Servicepersonnel to compensatefor use given !o tle use of the Service's constructioa and operation funds lossesof habitat value. Recreation valu' Instream Flow Incremental Methodology throughout the life of the proiect. lossesnot restoredthrough habitat will ad&esged tbrough to develop ingtream flow mitigation Nota.-hevention of loraermaY mitication be I reco- - endations.where appmpriate. necessitateexpenditure of fundr at an earlier seoirate and distinct recommended f. Where specific impact evaluation rtageof proiectplqnning Thir ir acceptable m"atureg to offset tbose specificlosses. metho& or mitigation technologiesare and preferted. i. The guidelines contained in this not available. Service employeesshdl d. Service mitigation policy do not apply to threateuedor where continue to apply their best profeeeional recomnendations will be made under an indaiuered species.However. t or ju.lgr.ent to developmitigation exp[cit expectation.thatthege Eeang both bibitat snd sqdmgered (1) would tbreatened apeciesirnpactr are involvet I reco--endationE. and meacues: be the ulrimate I A19

7660 I Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. fanuary 23. 1981 / Notices Servicepersonnel shall fully coordinate (2) Use of nonstnrcturalalternative to speciesfor the purposeof completely Environmentefforts with Endangered proposedproiect. offsettinghabitat value losses. I Speciesefforts to provide timely, (3)No project. (31Build fishery propagationfacilities. consistent,and unified (4) Arrange legislative b. Minimize the impoct set-asideon recommendationsfor resolutionof fish protectivedesignation for publiclands. and wildlife impacts,to the extent [1] Include conservationof fish and (5) Providebuffer zones. I possible.More specifically,Environment wildlife as an authorizedpurpose of (6)Lease habitat. and EndangeredSpecies personnel shall Federalproiects. (7)Acquire wildlife easements. coordinateall relatedactivities dealinc - (2)Locate at the least environmentailv (8) Acquire water rights. with investigationsof land and water damagingsite. (9) Acquire land in fee title. developments. This includesfull useof (3JReduce the sizeof the proiect. 6. Follow-up I all provisionsthat can expedite Service (4)Schedule timing and control of achievementof "one-stopshopping," The Serviceencourages. supports. and initial constructionoperations and will initiate. wheneverpracticable, post- including coordinatedearly planning subsequent operationand maintenance project evaluationsto determinethe involvement.shared permit review to minimize disruptionof biological effectivenessof recommendationsin t activities.consolidated permit reporting, community structure and function. achievingthe mitigation planninggoal. and consolidatedflow of pre-project (5) Selectivetree clearingor other The Servicewill initiate additional information to developers.consistent habitat manipulation. follow-up studieswhen funds are with legislativemandateg and (6)Control water pollution through deadlines. provided by the Federalaction agency.- I bestmanagement practices In thoseinstances where Serviie The Servicewill placehigh priority i. (7)Time and conbol flow diversions personneldetermine that Federal on and continue to developand and releases. agenciesor private developers implement procedures for reducing have not (8)Maintain public access. carried out thoseagreed upon mitigation delays and conflicts in perrrit related I (9) Coneol public accessfor meansand measures,then the Service activities. Such procedureswill include. recreationalor commercialpurposes. will requestthe but not be limited to: responsibleFederal [10)Control domesticlivestock use. action agency (1) processing to initiate conective foint of pennits. action. I (2) Resourcemapping. c. Rectify the impact (3) Early provision of ecological (1) Regradedistubed areas to APPENDIX A{THER AUTHO RITIES designinformation. contourswhich provide optimal fish and AND DIRECTION FOR SERVICE (4) Lnvolvementin SpecialArea wildlife habitat or approximateoriginal MMGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Management Planning. contours. I.EGISLATTVE I (2) k. The Service will encourage Seed.fert'li-" and treat .ueas as Federol Water Pollution Control Act. predevelopmentcompensation actions necessaryto restore fish and wildlife ag amended(33 U.S.C. 12s1 et seq.).Tbe by Federalaction agencieswhich can be reSources. 1977amendments require the Fish and used to offset future unavoidablelosses (3)Plant shrubs and hees and other Wildlife Service ". . . upon request of I for lands or waters not adequately vegetationto speedrecovery. the Governorof a State,and without protectedby an edsting law, policy, or ( ) Control pollutedspoil areas. reimbursement.to provide technical program. (5) Restockfish and wildlife resourcen assistanceto suchState in developinga Bankingof habitat value for the in repaired areas. Fish stocking or Statewide(water quality planning) I expresspurpose of compensationfor introductionswill be consistentwith the proSramand in implementingsuch unavoidablefuture losseswill be ServiceFish Health Policy $anuary 3, programafter its approval." In addition. consideredto be a mitigation rneasuie 19781. this Act requires the Service to comment and not an enhancement measure. d. Reduce or on proposedState permit programsfor Withdrawals ..bank" eliminote the impact over I from the miUgation time the control of dischargesof dredgedor to offset future unavoidabli losseswill fill material and to comment on all be bagedon habitat value replacerneol (1) hovide periodic monitoring of Federal permits within 90 days of not-acreageor cost for land purchase mitigation features to assure continuous receipt. I and managemenl operation. Federal PowerAct of N2A as (2) Assure proper training 5. Mitigatioa Meanl aad Mcarursr ofproiect . amended (16 U.S.C.791(a), S0lt. S11). persorurelin the operations of the. This Act authorizes tbe Secretary of the Mitigation recommendations can facility to presen e existing or restored lnterior to imposeconditions on licenseg include. but are not linited to. the types-' fi sh and wildlife resourceJat project issued for hydroelectric proiects within t of actionspresented below. Tbese sites. specific withdrawn public lands. Tbe means and measuresare presentedin (3)Maintain or replaceequipment or Secretary is given the general specific authority to order and pridriry in which stnrcturesso that future loss of frsh and prescribe fishways to they be constnrcted. should be recommendeiby Senrice wildlife resources due to equipment or personnel ..no maintained.and operatedat the I with the exception of the Ebucturefailure does not occur. licensee's project" expense. altemative. (SeeSecUon 4(a)). Estuary Protection Act (16 U.S.C. e. Compensate for impacts o. Avoid the impact 7227-7229).This Act requires the (1) Conductwildlife management Secretaryof the lnterior to review all (1) qgsiSnproject I . to avoid damageor activitiesto increasehabitat values of project plans and reportsfor land and loss of fish and wildlife resoruces existingareas. with proiect lands and water resourcedevelopment affecting including managementpractices suchas nearbypullic lands receivingpriority. estuariesand to make recomrnendations timing of activities or stilctual features (2) Conducthabitat constn:rction for conservation.protection, and such as multiple t outlets.paseage or activitiesto fully regtoreor rehabilitate enhancement. avoidanceshrctures and water previouslyaltered habitat or modify Coastol Zone Monagement Act of pollution control facilities. I existinghabitat suitedto evaluation 1972(76 U.S.C.1451-1{Ot). This Act I 420 I Federal Register/ Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, fanuary 23' 1981 / Notices 7661

requires the Secretary of Comsrerceto Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of the lands traversed." The Department obtain the views of Federal agencies Amendments of rcza (43 U'S'C. 1801). of TransportationPro jects using I affected by the program. including the This Act requires the Secretary of th.e Drotectedlands cannot be approved Department of the lnterior. and to Interior to managean environmentally unlessthere are no feasibleand prudent ensure that these views have been given sound oil and natural gas development alternativesto avoid suchuse and. if adequateconsideration before approval proSramon the outer continentalshelf. none,all possiblemeasures to minimize I of CoastalZone ManagementPlans. The The Fish and Wildlife Serviceprovides harm have been considered. Service provides the Department's recommendationsfor the Deparbnent EXECUTTVE impacts views about fish and wildlife resources. regardingpotential ecoiogical Water Policy Message areasand President's Pursuant to the Coastal Zone beforeleasirg in specific 6, 1978).This Messagedirects the to environmental shxdies fiune Management Act A.mentlmentsof 1980 confibutes Secretary of the Interior to promulgate I undertalen subsequentto leasing. (Pub. L 9H64) the Deparhent of proceduresfor determination of Leasing Act of t920, as tnterior provides com-oentson Federal Mineral measuresto mitigate losses (30U.S.C.18s). This Act of fish and grants to help Stater protectand amended wildlife of the laterior resources. presen/ecoastal areas because of their authorizesthe Secretary Water ResourcesCouncil's Ftnol glant through Federal t ". . . conservational. recreational. to rigbts-of-way Rules; Ptinciples ond Standards pipelinestransporting oil, for ecologicalor aestheticvalues." The 1980 lands for Water and Related Land Resources gas,synthetic liquids or Amend:nents also authorize the natural Saseoult Planning-Level C (September29. 1980). refined liquid fuel. Department of Interior to enter into fuels. or any other rules reiterate the inrportanceof ganting for a These I SpecialArea ManagementPlanning to Prior to a right-of-way participationin the development have a significant ". . . provide for increased specificity in proiect which may planningprocess by interestedFederal on the environment. the protectingnatural resouces.reasonable irnpact agencies,including the Deparhent of is reguired by this Act to coastdependent economic guwth. . . Secretary the Interior. This participation includes and review the applicant'splan and improved predictability in request review, coordination,or consultation I operation.and government decisionmaking." for consFuction, required under various legislative and of the right-of-way. Also. Water Bonk Ac, (16 U.S.C.13m-1311). rehabilitation executiveauthorities. Under theserules, is authorized to issue This Act requires that the Secretaryof the Secretary "Considerationis to be given to guidelinesand imposestipulations for Agriculture ". . . shall consult with the mitigation (as defined in 40 CFR1508.20) I suchproiects which shall include,but Secretary of Interior and take of the adverseeffects of eachalteraative limited to. ". . . requirementsfor appropriatemeasures to insurethat the not be plan. Appropriate mitigation is to be restoralion,revegetation and program carried out . . . is in harmony included where suitableas determined curtailmentor erosionof surfaceland: with wetlands proSr:Ims6dninistgisd by the agencydecisionmaker. Mitigation . . . requirementsdesigned to conhol or t by the Secretary of the lnterior." measuresincluded are to be plannedfor preventdamage to the environment Act (10U.S.C. at least concurrentand proportionate Wild ond Scenic Bivers (including d,-age to fish and wildlife This Act requires the implementationwith other major proiect 7277-1287). habitatJ:and. . . requirerrentsto except where such concurrent Secretaryof the lnterior to commenton protect the interests of individuals living features. I such proposals. The Fish and Wildlife and proportionatemitigation is in the general area of the right-of-way or provides physically impossible.ln the latter case' Service the Deparhent's permit who rely on the frsh. wildlife and views with regard to fish and wildlife the reasons for deviation hom this rule biotic resourcesof the area for presentedin the planning regourges. subsistencepurposes," are to be is to be planned I Geothermal Steom Act of 1970(3o Cooperative Unit '4,ct(16 U.S.C. report, and mitigation possibleimplementation. U.S.C.1001-1025). This Act requires that 753{at753(b)).This Act providesfor for the earliest wildlife and their the Fish and Wildlife Service cooperativeproSrams for researchand Mitigation for fish and recommend to the Secretary those lands training between the Fish and Wildlife habitat is to be planned in coordination wildlife I that shall not be leased for geothermal Service.the States,and universities. with Federal and State Fsh and development by rcason of their status Airport and Airwoy Development Act agenciesin accordance with the Fish as ". . . a fish hatchery srlministeredby (49U.S.C. 171s). Thig Act requires the and Wildlife CoordinationAct of 1958 the Seoetary, wildlife refuge, wildlife Secretary ofTransportation to ". . . t16- U.S.C.661-68a) (sic)." I range, game range, wildlife management consult with the Secretary of the Interior Executive Order llggbProtection of area. waterfowl production area. or for with regard to the effect that any project Wetlands [May 24. 1977J.This Executive lands acquired or resenredfor the . . . Eay bave on natural resources Order requires that each Federal'agency protection and conseryation of fish and inqlurling, but not limited to. fish and ". . . take action to minimize the wildlife that are threatenedwith wildlife. natural, scenic. and recreation desulrction.loss or degradationof I extinction." wetlands, and to preserveand enlance assets.water and air quality, and other Surfoce Mining Control ond factors affecting the euvironment. . .". the natural and beneficialvalues of Reclamotion Act of 1977(30 U.S.C.12m Deportment of Tronsportation Act 149 wetlands in carrying out the agency's et seq.).This Act requires the U.S.C.1s53(0). This Act makesit responsibilities fon (1) acquiring' I DeparErent of the lnterior to regulate national policy that ". . . special effort managingand disposingof Federal surface nining and recl"ttation at ehould be made to preserve tbe natural lands and facilities; and (2) providing existing and future mining areae.'ll'he beauty of the countryside and public federally undertaken. financed or Fisb and Wildlife Senriceprovider tbe park and recreation lands. wildlife and assistedcongtnrction and I Department with technical assistance waterfowl refuger, and historic sites irnprovements;and (3) conducting regarding fish and wildlife aspectr of . . .," and requires that the Secretary of Federal activities and Programs Deparhent pnrg:rm. on active and Transportation ". . . cooperate and affecting land uge, including but not abandoned mine lan&, including review consult with the 9ecrrtary of the Interior limited io water and related land I of State regulatory submigsiongard in developing transportation plane aud r€{rourcesplanning. regulation and mining plane. and com.meutr ou mining ptr,grFmqthat indude Eeasuree to liceneing activities." Relevant wetland I and redamatioo plerr.. maintaia or enhance the natural beauty concernEand valueg ildude. but are not I I M,1 7662 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 1s / Friday, fanuary 23, 1981 / Norices

limited to. maintenanceof natural habitat as a maior goal of the energy leads to a cleorly defined trophic I systemsand long-termproductivity of 9rgnatones. stntcture,biotic diversity. and material existingflora and fauna.habitat Convention Between the United cycles.(Eugene P. Odum. 1971. diversity, hydrological utility, fish, Statesond the Union of Soviet Socialist Fundamentals of Ecology) wildlife, timber. and food. Under this Republics Concerning'theConsemotion "Evaluotion species" means those fish I Qlrlir. a developmentalproiect in a of Migrotory Birds ond Their and wildlife resourcesin the planning wetland may proceedonly if no Environments (November S,1978). This area that are selectedfor impact practicablealternatives can be Treaty endorsesthe establishmentof analysis.They must cunently be present ascertainedand if the proposal. . . sanctuaries.refuges. and protected or known to occur in the planning area includesall practicablemeasures to areas.It mandatesreducing or during at least one stage of their life I minimi2gharm to the wetland eliminating damage that may to all migratory history exceptwhere speciesnot present resu-ltfrom its use." birds. Furthermore. it provides for (1) have been identified in fish and Execu ti ve Ord er 1lguhFloodo lo in designationof specialareas for wildlife restorationor improvement Monogement (May 2a,1927).Thi; migratory bird breeding,wintering. plans approvedby Stateor Federal I Executive Order requires that Federal feeding, and molting, and comsrits the resourceagencies, or (2) will result from agenciestake floodplain signatoriesto ". . . undertakemeasures natural speciessuccession management .necessary over the life into account when formulating or to protectthe ecosystemsin of the project. In these cases.the evaluating water or land use plans and theseareas ... againstpollution. analysismay include guchidentified I that these concerns be reflectld in the detrimentalalteration and other speciesnot cunently in the planning budgets, procedures.and regulations of environmeotaldegradation." area. the various agencies.this Order allows Lnplementinglegislation. Pub. L 9F€16, There are two basic approachesto the was passedin the developmentalactivities to proceed-the in United Statesin 1978. selectionof evaluationspecies: (1) I floodplain areasonly when relevant Convention on Nature Protection and selectionof specieswith high public agencieshave ". . , considered Wildlife Presenation in the Western interest,economic value or both and (2) alternativesto avoid adverseeffects and Hemisphere (April 15.19a1). This Treaty selectionof speciesto provide a broadei incompatibledevelopment in the has severalprovisions requiring parties ecologicalperspective of an area.The floodplains. . ." or when. in lieu of this. to conservecertain wildlife resources choiceof one approachin lieu of the I they have ". . . designedor modified and their habitats. otler may result in a completely their actions in order to minimize Convention Between the United different outconqein the analvsisof a States ond (for potential harur to or within the Great Britoin Conado) proposedland or water devel,opment. floodplain. . .". for Protection of Migratory Birds Therefore.the obiectivesof the study {August1. 1916.as amended 30. shouldbe I Execu ti ve Ord er 11987-Exoti c fanuary clearly defined beforespeties 1979).This Treaty provides for a uniform selectionig initiated. Otganisms [May 24. 1927).This If the objectivesof ". . . systemof protectionfor certain a study are to Executive Order requires that Federal basea decisionon speciesof birds which migratebetween potential impacts agenciesshall restrict, to the extent to an entire ecological the United Statesand Canada.in order community, such as a wetland. I permitted by law, tbe introduction of unique to assurethe presenrationof species exotic speciesinto the lands then a more ecologicallybased or waters either harmlessorbeneficial to man." which they own. lease, approachis desirable.If. bowever,a or hold for The Treaty prohibits hunting pu?oses of land or water use decisionis to be adminisbation.and insectivorousbirds. enclruage but allows killing of basedon potential impactsto a public I the States,local governments. birds under permit when iniurious to- use area.then speciesselection ghould and private citizens to do til same.This agricultrue. The 1929amendment allows favor animals with sigrrificant Executive Order also requires Federal hurnan subsistencehunting of waterfowl use values.Ia actual practice, agenciesto restrict, to the extent species outsideof the nonnal hunting season. shouldbe selectedto representsocial, permitted by law, the importation of I economicand broad ecologicalviews exotic speciesand to resEict the use of APPENDIX B-OTHER DEFINMONS becausemitigation planning effortg Federal funds and prograrnsfor such "Compensation,"when used irr tbe incorporateobiectives that have importation. The Secretary of the social, context of Senrice mitication economic.and ecologicalaspects. Interior, in consultaUon with the I teconrmendations,means firll Speciesselection always should be Secretary of Agdcultue, ig authorized to replacementof project-inducedlosses to approachedin a manner that will develop-by rule or regulation a system frsh and wildlife Fesources.provided optimizeconFibutions to to standarrli'e and the stated simplify the suchfull replacementhas been judged objectives of the planning requirenents procedures mitigation and by the Serwiceto be consistent witi tfre effort. I appropriate for irnplementing this Order. appropriatemitigation planning goal. - Most land and watbr development NATIONAL/INTERNATIONALTREATIES "Ecoregion" refers to a larje decisionsare stronglyinlluenced by the biogeographicalunit charact-rizedby perceived proposed Tntst Eesponsibility to Indian impactsof the _lfd"y! distinctive biotic and abiotic action on human Tribes. This responiibility is reflected in use.Since I relationships.An ecoregionmay be economically the numerous Federal treaties with the or socially important subclassified into domains.divisions, specieshave Indian tribes. These treaties have the clearly defined linkagesto provinces,and sections.A technical human they force of law. hotection of Indian use, shouldbe includedas explanationand map is provided in the evaluation hunting and frshing rights necessitates speciesin all appropriate I "Ecoregionsof the United States" by land and water studies.As a guideline, conservation of fish and wildlife and RobertG. Bailey.published by the their habitat U.S. the following types of speciesshould be ForestService,1976. considered: Convention Between the United all of the biotic . speciesthat are associatedwith Stotesond (September -"Ecosystem"rtreans I lapon 19.1924). elements(i.e.. species. populations, and IrnportantResource problems as This Treaty endorses the establishmealt communities)aad abiotic elements(i.e.. deiigrratedby the Director of the Fish of sancfuaries and pneseryation fixeg land. air. water. energy) interacting in a anaivitalire"senrice ror and enhancement teicept t of migratory bird given geograpbic area so that a flow of threatened or endanglred ipecies). I 422 I Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 1$ / Friday, fanuary 23' 1981 / Nott"gl 766:l . Other specieswith monetaryand resourcesto replacethe habitat value of that will directly or indirectly affect fish non-monetarybenefits to people the resourceslost. where suchsubstitute and wildlife resoruces. I accruingfrom consumptiveand resourcesare physically and "Replacement" means the substitution nonconsumptivehuman usesincluding. biologicaily the sameor closelY or offietting of lish and wildlife resource but not limited to. fishing.hunting, bird- approximatethose lost. losseswith reltourcesconsidered to be watching and educational.aesthetic. "Loss" meansa changein fish and of equivalentbiological value. However' scientific or subsistenceuses. wildlife resourcesdue to human resourcesused for rePlacement I loss or modificationof another An analysisbased only on those activitiesthat is consideredadverse represent specieswith directly identiliable and: type of habitat value. Replacement economicor social value may not be (1) reducesthe biologicalvalue of that still result in a lois of habitat "&ionr broad enoughto adequatelydescribe all habitatfor evaiuationspecies; acreageand typeswhich will I of the ramificationsof a land and water (2) reducespopulation numbers of continuallydiminish the overall national use proposal.If it is desirableto evaluationspecies; resoulcebase. It shouldbe dearlY increasethe ecologicalperspective ofan (3) increasespopulation numbers of understoodthat replacementactions assessment,the following typesof "nuisance" species; never restorethe lost fish and wildlife I speciesshould be considered: (4) reducesthe humanuse of those resource-that is lost forever. . to Speciesknown to be sensitive fish and wildlife tesouces; or Dated:fanuary 13,1981. The specificland and water useactions. (5) disruptsecosystem stnrcture and Cecil Aadruc, speciesselected with this approach function, Secretaryof the Deportmentof theInterion serve as "early warning" or indicator Changesthat improve the value of I [FR Doe 8r-r8e5 Filcd 1-22{t &45 ul species for the affected fish and wildlife for evaluationspecies existinghabitat BTLUI|(I CODE €1D55.I community. are not to be consideredlosses. i.e., . Speciesthat perform a key role in a burning or selective tree harvesting for community because of their roie in wildlife Eanagementpurposes. In I nubient cycling or energyflows. These addition, reductionsin animal speciesalso serveas indicatorsfor a populationsfor the purposeofharvest or large segmentof the fish and wildlife fish and wildlife managmentwill not be community, but may be difficult to consideredas lossesfor the purposeof I identify. this policy. . groups Speciesthat represent of "Minimize" means to reduce to the which a coulmon species utilize smallestpracticable amount or degree' (guilds).A environrnentalresource "Mitigation bonking" means habitat speciesis selectedfrom I representative protection or improvementactions taken each guild and predicted environmental expresslyfor the purposeof impacts for the selectedspecies are compensatingfor unavoidablelosses extendedwith somedegree of from specificfuture development to other guild members. confidence includesthose actions I "Federal oction agency" mea\s a actions.It only and beyond those typically taken departrnent, agency or instnrmentalify of above protectionof fish and the United Stateswhich plans. by Congressfor resources. constructs,operates or maintainsa wildlife I project. or which plans for or approvesa "Outof-kind repI acement" means permit, lease.or licensefor projectsor providing or managingsubstitute managesFederal lands. resourcesto ieplace the habitat value of the resourceslost. where suchsubstitute "Fi sh and wi ldl i fe fesources " means I birds, fishes.mammals, and all other resourcesare physically or biologically classesof wild animals and all types of different from those lost. aquatic and land vegetationupon which "Planning area" means a geographic wildlife is dependent. space with an identified boundary that "Hobitat" means the area which includeg: I (1) area identified in the study's provides direct support for a given The species,population. or community. It authorizing docuoent; includes all environ-urentalfeahres that (2) The locationsof resources comprise an area such as air quality, included in the study's identified I water quality, vegetationand soil problemsand opportunities: characteristicsand water supply (3) The locationsof alternativeplans. (including both surface and often called "project areas:"and groundwater). (a) The locationsof resourcesthat I "Hobitat value" means the suitability would be directly. indirectly, or of an area to supporta given evaluation cumulatively affected by alternative species. plans, often called the "affected area." "Important ResourceProblem" meaas "Practicoble"meang capable of being I a clearly defined problemwith a single done within existing constraints. The irnportantpopulation or a connunity of tegt of what is practicabledepends upon similar species in a given geographic the situation and includescongideration area as defined by the Directorof the of the pertinentfactors, such as I Fish and Witdlife Service. environment.cost. or technology. "In -ki n d rep I o cem en t" mesns "Project" meansany action planning I providing or managing subgtitute or approval prc,cessrelating to an action I E.l. OIEIIE! tllttf CttCtr lgal O - 335-26e APPENDIX 2

Surnmary of Habitat Evaluation Methods (including HEp and, others)

one of the most difficult problems facing resource managers is the assessment of biological resources. The need. for a method,ology that provides both guantitative inventories of baseline cond.itions as well as guantitative assessments of projected environmental

impacts has been recognized for many years. Although rnany different methodologies have been proposed., most recent method.s

have revolved around the value of the affected, habitat. The most I widely used habitat evaluation method is the Habitat Evaluati-on Procedures (HEP), developed by the u.s. Fish and, Wildlife service I in the early 1970's. The Procedures were d,eveloped to fulfill a I number of objectives (scharnberger and, Farmer J.978): t. To develop rnethodologies to quantitatively assess baseline habitat conditions for fish ana ivitalife in I nonmonetary terms;

2. Tg provide a uniform system for predicting impacts on I f ish and wild,life resources i 3. To display and compare the beneficial and, ad,verse impact,s of project alternatives on fish ana witalife I resources i 4. To provide ' a basis for recomruendj.ng project I alterations to compensate for or mitigale ad,verse effects on fish and wildlife resourcei; and I 5. To.provide data to decision makers and the public from which sound resource decisions can be mad,e.- t I I I I Appendix 2 - A24 I objectives 3 and 4,indicate the desire of FWS to have HEp play a usefur rore in rnitigation decisions. rn particular, HEp is I designed to herp with one of the most problematic aspects of mitigation planning, the d.etermination of compensation I requirements. I The goal of a HEP analysis is to develop a unit of neasurernent by which various habitat states can be compared,. These units are I called Habitat Units (llu). The first step in d.eriving the lfUrs is to compute a Habitat Suitability fnd,ex (HsI) , which documents the

I habitat quality for the species or group of species selected for I evaluation. This index value is derived. from an evaluation of the ability of key habitat components to fulfil1 the life requisi.tes of I selected species of fish and wildlife. The condition of existing habitat components are compared to the d.ocumented, optimum habitat I cond'itions of the species of interest. optirnum cond,it,ions for wildlife are those associated, with the highest potential d,ensities

I of species within a d,efined area. The HSr rang:es frorn 0.0 to 1.0, I with L. 0 representing the rnost favorable habitat cond,iction possible at a site, and each increment represent,ing an equal change I in rnagnj.tude. An inrportant und.erlying assumption of HEp is that the HSI is linearly related to carrying capacity.

I Habitat Units are actually calculated by rnultiplying the HSI t by the total area of that habitat type: IfU:HSIxArea. I The lru is, therefore, an expression of both the quality and quantity I of habitat available to a specific species. I Appendix 2 - A25

I In applying HEP in rnitigation studies, habitat losses are deternined and, the areas designated for compenstaion are evaluated I for various management alternatives to determine the habitat gains - I attributable to selected rnitigation rneasures. The analyses can be I I j.n-kind for compensation (one IIU is provid,ed, for each IIU lost for I an evaluation species) , equal replacernent (a gain of one IIU for a species to offset the loss of one IIU for another, egually irnportant I species), and relative trade-off. The relative trade-off analysis involves using Relat,ive Value fndices (RVI) that reflect hurnan I value jud'gements about the relative value of one species compared I to another- For example, if trout have a perceived. RVI of 1.0 and whitef ish have an RVI of 0.5, one IfU for trout would. eqtral two HUr s I for whitefish (Arrnour et aI. t9g4). Fws is convinced that HEP offers the best existing method, for I evaluating habitat quality, and has committed to the large-scale I deveroprnent of HSr models for a variety of vertebrate and, invertebrate species. Most application of HEp has been in I terrestrial habitats. Although many models have been developed, for species or life stages of species that occur in estuaries and, I coastal wetlands (see list of 29 species in Appendix 2), HEp has not yet been utilized in the marine environment.

I Even though the forrnal Habitat Evaluation proced,ures have not I been applied in narine systems, a rnod,ified, version of HEp has been. Where the fornal version utilizes Habitat Suitability nod,els for I individual species, the nod,ified, version substitutes the nbest t professional judgementrt of loca1 experts to estinate habitat value I I Appendix 2 - A26

(J. Fancher, Fws, personal cornmunication). used this wdy, HEp is a process that documents assumptions and tracks the progress of a habitat evaluation. All available inforrnati.on is utilized with a nodified HEP, but no species rnodels are necessary. The modified HEP has been used, by the Laguna Niguel fierd office of FWSto. evaluate various harbor d,evelopment proj ects and rnitigation alternatives (Fancher, personal communication) . Although HEP has been officially adopted by Fws, other giovernment agencies have their own rnethods for habitat evaluation. A recent review of more than 36 rnethodologies by the corps of Engineers (CoE) suggested that HEP had the most merit of all the methodologies exarnined, with coE's Habitat Evaluation System (HEs) also receiving a high ranking (Lipton et al. 1994). Nonetheless, there are severe deficiencies in HEp as it rnight be applied. to marine systems. A recent, Habitat Evaluation Working Group (HEWG) for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conclud.ed, that trexj.sting standard,ized, habitat evaluation methods are not applicable in marine and estuarine habitats, nor d,o they measure habitat valuert (Lipton et aI. I9g4).

one of the Habitat Evaruation working Group;s greatest cri.ticisms of HEP was that the habitat unit has no economic relevance. The habitat unit measures the ability of a habitat to produce fish relative to the rnaximum carrying capacity of that species; the HEWGargues that society does not value the relative ability of a habitat to produce fish, but rather the fish themselves. The assumption that the HSf is linearly related, to Appendix 2 - AZ7 carrying capacity does not alLow for d,ensity-dependent effects or thresholds- HEWGalso argues that HEP is very sensitive to the selection of species to be used in the analysis, and to the methods used to aggregate life stages or different species. Finally, r have argrred that all habitat evaruation rnethodologies, including HEp, nay be inadeguate for some of the inpacts that result from power plant operations. The d,irect loss of organisms due to i.npingement and, entrainrnent results in a loss or resources, but littre or no alteration of the habitat.

Furthermore, the population dynamics and, life histories of many narine organisms d,iffer from their terrestrial counterparts, making the applicat,ion of evaluation techniques that rely on local habitat conditions problematic. APPENDTX 3

Correspondence with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Unired Stflles I)enartrlrent ol' lhe l n terio: 429 FISH AND IVILDLIFE SENVICI 'AL tiATI0 )i A L C:OASf ECO,qYSTINS TL.{.". tiAS..1- SLIDELL (.Orrpt'TEttco}tpLE:.. : . lOIO(;AUSE IJOULEVAITI SLIDELL.LOUISIAii.i 7U43;

November6, 1985

Dr. Richard F. Ambrose Departmentof Biological Sciences University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93f06 Dear Dr. Ambrose:

Dr. Carroll Cordeshas askedme to respondto your letter of 0ctober L7,1995, regardingmarine HEP applications and mitigation projects since I amfamiliar with your region.

No HSI modelshave beendevelooed for marine species of the Pacific Southwest of the U. S. Althougha few modelsfor Atlantic and Gulf of MexicoCoast species nominal'lyapply in marineas wel'l as estuarine conditions, the strong focus of NCET'shabitat modelingactivities is on speciesor life stages of species that occur in estuariesano coastal wetlancis. Modejsare available for: southernkingfish clapper rail hard clam striped bass(coastal redhead(wintering) litt'leneck clam stocks) great egret Gulf of Mexicooyster red drum roseate spoonbill pink shrimp Gulf menhaden mottled duck white shrimp spotted seatrout Americanblack duck brownshrimo al ewife (winteri ng) bluebackherring white ibis Atlantic croaker eastern brownpelican juveniie spot laughinggull Americanshad lesser scaup(wintering) southernflounder lesser snotYgoose (wintering) Gulf flounder

I amnot awareof anymarine applications of HEP,nor any plans for Fish and t'lildlife service to becomeinvolved in marineapplicatio-ns. Onenegotiation of mitigation for habitat loss in your regionmay be pertinent to the situation at SONGS(see the enclosed"Memorindum oi Underitanding"). The processuseci to arrive at mitigation requirementsfor habitat loss in LongBeach Harborwas analogous !o an appitcationdt Hgp,except that individual speiies could not be useiias "evaluationelenents", for lac'kof appropriateHSI'models. This difference preventedidentification of gradationsof quality within a habitat type and reducedthe assessmentof mitigation requirementsto a constant I A30

I of prooortionality betweentwo shallow-watertypes. Sucha trade-off is morea matler of age_ncypoiicy and negotiation amonqinvolveci parties than technical assessmentof 'improvementshabitat loss andalternative aitions to compensatefor those losses I by in habitat quality elsewhere. Uniessthe plan for mitigation at SONGSis ro create or improvekel-p habitat elsewhere,the setilement is likely to be of the sort workedout for LongBeach Harbor. The determinationof the- I relative values of grossly different kinds of habitat is a matter of interpreting poiicy, not the appiication of a methodof habitat assessmentwhich assumeitnat- the sameresources are at issue. This is the role of the Division of Ecological I Services through its Field 0ffice at LagunaNiguel. The National MarineFisheries Service undoubtedlywill be involved in any delermination of mitigation obiectives and requiiementsand shoul'dbe co-nsulted. I NlulFScioes not have a set procedureof habitat assessment;however, the enclosed evaluations of HEPmay provide an indication of their approachto the problem. I The Fish and l.lildlife CoordinationAct Report, "l4obile Harbor, AlabamaProject", is-an exampleof HEPapplied to estuarinemitigation assessment.Few others exist. No guidelines are available for conceivingand screeningmitigation a'lternatives. The rutes to keep in mind are that any creation 6t newhabitat I of the samekind as lost mustbe in areas of manifestly lower value in its present form than what is to replace it, and that if replacementis not in kind, the rep'lacementmust be of the sameor a higher resourcecategory than what is I lost-- (Seethe USFWSMitigation Policy). If resourcecategoiiel havebeen established for marineres6urces in yoirr region, the l4itigaiion Policy is even .more restrictive. 0n the assumptionthat kelp bedsare ai least as vlluable I 9s_anyother habitat in opencoastal areas, in-kind mitigation (creation of new kelp beds, enhancementof existing kelp beds) is likely to be mostwidely acceptable(if feasible). Theoniy out-of-kind mitigations that might bb acceptable are creation or enhancementof coastal wellands (in the broad senseof I sha'llow, protected, openwater surroundedby marsh)or a hatchery programfor the species of greatest local concern. Doubtless,you are already awareinat ttre SouthernCalifornia EdisonCompany and California Departnentbf Fish and Game I independentlyare investigating the feasibi'lity of hatchery programs. The precedent of hatcheries as rnitigation foi loss of salmonidspawning iuhs is relevant; holrever, single species measuresare less likely to be viewbdas idequate compensation t where a habitat type is valuedfor its support of a complex-assemblageof organisms rather than for support of a single life stage of a dominantand highly valuid single species.

I I_hope these cormentsare of someuse to you in developinga set of mitigation alternatives and in anticipating howdiffbrent classes'of-proposa'lsmighl be received by reviewing agencies. Please keep us inforrBd aboutyour aciivities I and contact us at any time that we might be of further assistance. Successful mitigation is crucial to the mission of the Service; however,mitigation remains I I I I I 431 I very mucha trial and error endeavor. lrlecan provide technical assistancewhen the scope of the mitigation becomesdefined. in turn, we sha'll Ueneiii iiot t having to re-evaiuate our approachesfor applicability in a newenvironmeni. I Sincerely , 4*A; t f Christopher P. Onuf Ecologi st I Telephone(5OA; 646-7323 Enclosures: 1. l,lemorandumof Understanding I 2. NI4FSReport on Evaluatingfrarine and Estuarine Habitat 3. CoordinationAct Reporton Mobile Harbor Project I 4. USFl.|SMitigation Policy 5. Kelp Forest CommunityProfi'le I 6. Littieneck ClamHSI Model I I I I I I I I t I 432

APPENDIX 4

Partial list of species at san onofre Kelp Bed and nearby areas

This species list was compiled, from southern california Edison Annual Reports covering 1982, 1983 and 1984, DeMartini (1983), and, the master species list maintained by the KeIp invertebrate-projLi:t (Herrlinge;, personal communication) . Abbrevialions used are: BKlBarn'Ke1p, s6KUp=San Onofre Kelp-Upcoastr SOKDN=SanOnofre Kelp-Downcoast, SMK=San-Mateo Ke1p, 0:1980, 1=1981, 2=l-982, 3=J.983, 4=!984, *=Kelp fnvertebrate project IisL' with no location noted, irnp=1nn1nged (ilata frorn SCE Reports) .

TAXON SPECTES BK SOKUP SOKDN SMK

CHLOROPHYT Bryopsis sp. 3 4 CHLOROPHYT Cladophora sp. 34 34 4 4 CHLOROPHYT Enteromorpha sp. 4 4 CHLOROPHYT Unidentified nodular 34 34 4

PHAEOPHYTA Cystoseira osmundacea 234 234 234 234 PHAEOPHYTA Desmarestia munda 34 4 4 4 PHAEOPHYTA Desmarestia ligulata 2 PHAEOPHYTA Dictyopteris zonarioides 4 34 PHAEOPHYTA Dictyota fIabellat,a 234 234 234 34 PHAEOPHYTA Ectocarpus sp. 34 34 34 34 PHAEOPHYTA Egregia laevigata 2 2 PHAEOPHYTA Laminaria farlowii 234 34 PHAEOPHYTA Macrocystis pyrifera 4 234 234 234 PHAEOPHYTA Pachydictyon coriaceum 3 23 234 34 PHAEOPHYTA Pterygophora californica 234 34 34 34 PHAEOPHYTA Ralfsia sp.nr. fungiforrnj-s 4 4 4 4 PHAEOPHYTA Sargassurn agardhiinun 24 34 4 PHAEOPHYTA Taonia lennebackerae 4 4 34 34 PHAEOPHYTA Zonaria farlowii 4 4 4 PHAEOPHYTA Acrochaetiun sp. 4 PHAEOPHYTA * Egregia urenziesii PHAEOPHYTA * Ei.senia arborea PHAEOPHYTA * Colponenia/Hydroclathrus sp.

RHODOPHYTA Acrosorium uncinaturn 24 234 234 34 RrioDopHyTA AnisocladelLa pacifica 24 3 RHODOPHYTA Antitharnnion sp. 34 34 34 34 RHODOPHYTA Antitharnnionelia sp. 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Bossiella gardneri 3 3 3 3 RHODOPHYTA Bossiella sp. 24 24 24 24 RHODOPHYTA Botryocladia pseudodichotona 34 4 34 RHODOPHYTA Callithamnion sp. 4 4 4 RIIODOPHYTA Cal1ophy1lis finna 4 4 A33

RHODOPHYTA Callophyllis falbellu1ata 3 234 234 34 RHODOPHYTA Callophyllis violacea 2 234 24 24 RHODOPHYTA Centroceras clavulaturn 4 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Ceramiurn taylori 4 RHODOPHYTA Ceramium sp. 4 34 34 34 RHODOPHYTA Coelosira compressa 3 3 24 234 RHODOPHYTA Corallina officinalis 234 234 24 234 RHODOPHYTA Corallina pinnatifolia 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Corallina vancouveriensis 3 RHODOPHYTA Crlptonemia obovata 34 34 24 RHODOPHYTA Cryptopleura crispa 3 3 RHODOPHYTA Dasya sinicola 4 RHODOPHYTA Derbesia marina 3 RHODOPHYTA Farlowia compressa 2 RHODOPHYTA Gelidium nudifrons 234 234 234 234 RTIODOPHYTA Gelidiun robustum 3 4 3 RHODOPHYTA Gigartina canaliculata 3 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Gigartina exasperata 34 234 24 RHODOPHYTA Gloiophloea confusa 34 34 34 RHODOPHYTA Gracillaria cunninghani 4 FJ{ODOPHYTA Gracillaria sjoestedtii 34 34 4 RHODOPHYTA Gracillaria verrucosa 4 RHODOPHYTA Grateloupia doryphora 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Grateloupia sp. 3 2 RHODOPHYTA Griffithsia furcellata 4 4 RHODOPHYTA criffithsia sp. 4 RHODOPHYTA Gynnogongrus leptophyllus 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Gymnogongrus platyphyllus 234 234 24 4 RHODOPHYTA Haliptylon gracile 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Halymenia californica 2 23 RHODOPHYTA Halymenia sp. 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Herposiphonia sp. 3 4 RHODOPHYTA Heterosiphonia sp. 4 RHODOPHYTA Hildenbrandia sp. 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Hypnea johnstoni 4 RHODOPHYTA Iridaea cordata 4 RHODOPHYTA Jania crassa 4 34 RHODOPHYTA Laurenica decidua 34 3 RHODOPHYTA Laurencia lajolla 23 RHODOPHYTA Laurencia pacifica 4 RIIODOPHYTA Laurencia spectabilis 23 RIIODOPHYTA Laurencia subdisticha 4 RHODOPHYTA Laurencia subopposita 24 23 4 2 RHODOPHYTA Laurencia sp. 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Leptocladia binghamiae 23 2 RHODOPHYTA Lithotharnniurn sp. 234 234 234 234 RHODOPHYTA Ozophora californica 3 RHODOPHYTA Peyssonellia rubra 2 2 2 2 RHODOPHYTA Peyssonellia sp. 34 34 34 34 RHODOPHYTA Phycodrys profunda 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Phyllophora californj.ca 2 434

RHODOPHYTA Pikea californica 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Platysiphonia sp. 4 RHODOPHYTA Platythamnion sp. 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Plocamium pacificum 4 3 RHODOPHYTA Polyneura latissirna 4 24 3 RHODOPHYTA Polyopes bushiae 3 RHODOPHYTA Polysiphonia paniculata 3 RHODOPHYIA Polysiphonia sp. 34 34 234 4 RHODOPHYTA Prionitis angusta 24 24 24 24 RHODOPHYTA Prionitis aultralis 24 2 4 24 RHODOPHYTA Prionitis cornea 2 2 2 RHODOPHYTA Pterocladia caloglossiodes 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Pterocladia capillacea 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Pterocladia rnedia 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Pterocladia pyrarnidale 2 RHODOPHYTA Pterosiphonia baileyi 4 RHODOPHYTA Pterosiphonia dendroidea 4 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Pterosiphonia pennata 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Pterosiphonia spp. 24 24 24 4 RHODOPHYTA Rhodoptilum densum 4 4 RHODOPHYTA Rhodlmenia arborescens 3 4 34 34 RHODOPHYTA Rhodlanenia californica 234 234 234 234 RHODOPHYTA Rhodymenia pacifica 2 2 2 2 RHODOPHYTA Schizymenia epiphytica 4 RHODOPHYTA Schizlanenia pacifica 4 I RHODOPHYTA Schizymenia sp. 4 RHODOPHYTA Stenograrnme interrupta 2 RHODOPHYTA Tiffaniella snyderi- 4 4 34 34 I RHODOPHYTA Unidentified f ilarnentous 4 3 4 RHODOPHYTA Unidentified juvenile 4 4 4 4 RHODOPHYTA * Gigartina corymbifera RHODOPHYTA * Gigart,ina spinosa t RHODOPHYTA * Nienburgia andersonj,ana RHODOPHYTA * Plocamium cartilagineum RHODOPHYTA * Ptilota filicina

I VASCUI,AR * Phyllospadix spp.

PROTOZOA Grornia oviformris 4 34 34 34 t PROTOZOA Rosalina sp. 3 3 3 3 PROTOZOA Unident,ified Foraninifera 4 4 4 4 I PORIFERA Anaata sp. 4 PORIFERA Astylinifer arndti 2 2 2 PORIFERA Axinella mexicana 2 234 234 I PORIFERA Cliona celata 3 PORIFERA Cyanon argon 234 234 234 234 PORTFERA Dysidea amblia 234 PORTFERA Halichondria panicea 23 2 2 23 I PORIFERA Haliclona ecbasis 23 2 PORIFERA Haliclona lunisinilis 23 2 234 234 I I A35

PORIFERA Haliclona perrnollis 2 2 24 24 PORIFERA Haliclona sp. 4 4 4 4 PORIFERA Hynenamphiastra cyanoc4npta 2 2 24 24 PORIFERA Hymeniacodon sinapium 23 3 4 PORTFERA Hyrneniacodon ungodon 23 PORIFERA Fiuclina suberea 2 PORIFERA Isociona lithophoenix 24 2 PORIFERA Leucetta losangelensis 424 PORIFERA Leuconia heathii 34 23 234 24 PORIFERA Leucosolenia eleanor 4 4 44 PORIFERA Leucosolenia maclayi 4 44 PORIFERA Leucosolenia nautila 4 4 44 PORIFERA Microciona rnicroj oanna 3 PORIFERA Microciona parthena 23 32 PORIFERA Microciona sp. 24 234 PORTFERA Mycale rnacginitiei 4 PORIFERA Myxilla spp. 4 2 PORIFERA Unid. Myxospongida 4 PORIFERA Paresperella psila 4 PORIFERA Plocamia karykina 234 234 234 234 PORIFERA Unid. Plocamiidae 4 PORIFERA Plocamissima igzo 24 PORIFERA Unid. Poecilosclerina 4 PORIFERA Prosuberites sisyrrnus 4 4 4 4 PORTFERA Raspailiidae 34 PORIFERA Reniera spp. 2 PORTFERA Rhabdodermella nuttingi 24 23 234 234 PORIFERA Speciospongia confoederata 3 PORTFERA Spongia ida 23 PORIFERA Unid. Suberitidae 4 PORTFERA Tedanione obscurata 234 2 4 PORIFERA Tethya aurantia 234 234 234 PORTFERA Timea authia 4 PORIFERA Unidentified red 3 PORIFERA Unidentified spong 2 2 PORIFERA Verongia thione 4 PORIFERA * Acarnus erithacus

COELENTERA Abietinaria sp. 4 4 34 4 COELENTERA Aglaopheni.a struthenoides 234 234 34 COELENTERA Anthopleura arternes ia 24 2 234 24 COELENTERA Anthopleura elegantissima 34 234 24 4 COELENTERA Astrangia laj ollaensis 2 34 234 COELENTERA Cactosorna arenaria 4 COELENTERA Clytia bakeri 4 COELENTERA Corynactis californica 23 3 234 234 COELENTERA Epiactis prolifera 34 234 34 COELENTERA Halecium sp. 3 COELENTERA Lophogorgia chilensis 34 34 23 COELENTERA Muricea californica 234 234 234 234 COELENTERA Muricea fruticosa, 234 234 234 234 A36

COELENTERA Pachycerianthus sp. 234 34 234 234 COELENTERA Paracyanthus stearnsii 234 23 234 234 COELENTERA Plumularia sp. 4 4 COELENTERA Sertularella sp. 34 34 234 34 COELENTERA TeaIia sp. 234 2 24 234 COELENTERA Unid. Hydroid 4 4 4 4 COELENTERA Unidentified hydroid 4 234 234 234 COELENTERA * Anthopleura xanthogramrnica COELENTERA * Balanophyllia elegans COELENTERA * Carnpanularia spp. COELENTERA * obelia spp. COELENTERA * Pachycerianthus finbriatus COELENTERA * Renilla koellikeri COELENTERA * Tubularia crocea PI,ATYHELMT Prosthoceraeus bellostriatus PI,ATYHELMT Thysanozoon sp. PI,ATYHELMI Unid. flatworm

NEMATODA Unid. Nematode 4

STPUNCULTD Phascolosoma agassiz j.i 4 SIPUNCULOI Unidentified 34

ANNELIDA Chaetopterus variopedatus 4 3 ANNELIDA Dexiospira spirillurn 234 234 234 4J+ ANNELIDA Diopatra ornata 4 234 234 234 ANNELIDA Eudistyl ia pollanorpha 23 ANNELIDA Unid. Euphrosinidae 4 ANNELTDA Hydroides pacificus 4 4 4 4 ANNELIDA Phragmatopoma californica 2 234 234 23 ANNELTDA Unid. Phyllodocidae 4 ANNELIDA Pista elongata 3 ANNELTDA Pista spp. 24 4 ANNELIDA Platynereis bicanaliculata 234 3 ANNELIDA Platynereis bicanal j.culata 4 ANNELIDA Polynoid 2 ANNELIDA Protolaeospira capensis 4 4 ANNELIDA Protolaeospira exinia 4 4 4 ANNELTDA Sabellaria cernentarium 34 34 34 34 ANNELTDA Sabellid 2 ANNELIDA Sabellidae 34 4 ANNELIDA Salmacina tribranchi.ata 234 4 24 ANNELIDA Serpulidae 3 ANNELIDA Spirobranchis spinosus 24 4 ANNELTDA Spirorbis bifurcatus 4 4 ANNELIDA Spirorbis borealj.s 4 4 4 ANNELIDA Telepsavus costanrm ANNELIDA Unid. Nereid ANNELIDA Unid. Polycheata 4 ANNELIDA Unid. Polynoid 4 A37

ANNELIDA * Cirrifornia sp. ANNELIDA * Eupomatus gracilis ANNELIDA * Serpula vermicularis ANNELIDA * Spirorbis spp. NEMERTINEA Unidentified

BRYOZOA Adeoni.d 2 BRYOZOA Aetea anguina 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Aetea ligulata 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Aetea recta 3 3 34 BRYOZOA Aetea truncata 34 4 34 34 BRYOZOA Aetea sp. 4 4 BRYOZOA Alcyonidium rnammilatum 4 BRYOZOA Alcyonidiun polyoum 4 BRYOZOA Antropora tincta 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Aplousina major 4 3 4 BRYOZOA Aplousina sp. 3 3 I BRYOZOA Arthropoma cecili 34 4 BRYOZOA Bice1lariella sp. 3 BRYOZOA Borgiola pustulosa 3 BRYOZOA Bugula longirostrata 4 BRYOZOA Bugula neritina 4 4 BRYOZOA Bugula pacifica 4 BRYOZOA Bugula uniserialis 4 I BRYOZOA Bugula sp. 34 3 BRYOZOA Callopora armata 3 BRYOZOA Callopora circumclathrata 4 I BRYOZOA Callopora corniculifera 4 BRYOZOA Callopora horrida 4 BRYOZOA Ca1lopora lineata BRYOZOA Callopora sp. 4 3 I BRYOZOA Caulibugula californica 34 BRYOZOA Caulibugula ciliata 4 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Caulibugula occidentalis 4 3 I BRYOZOA Cauloramphus echinus 4 4 4 BRYOZOA Cauloramphus spiniferum 34 34 34 BRYOZOA CeLlaria rnandibulata 234 234 234 234 t BRYOZOA Chapperia patula 4 34 BRYOZOA Clavopora occidentalis 3 3 3 BRYOZOA Colletosia radiata 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Conopeurnspp. 2 t BRYOZOA Copidozoum planurn 3 BRYOZOA Costazia costazi 4 BRYOZOA Costazia procumbens 2 I BRYOZOA Costazia robertsoni 234 23 234 234 BRYOZOA Costazia sp. 3 3 34 34 BRYOZOA Costazia ventricosa 4 3 4 I BRYOZOA Crisia occidentalis 4 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Crisia serrulata 4 4 4 I BRYOZOA Crisia sp. 234 234 234 234 I I A3B

BRYOZOA Crisulipora occidentalis 4 4 BRYOZOA Dakaria ordinata 4 3 BRYOZOA Dakaria sp. 4 BRYOZOA Diaporoecia californica 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Diaporoecia floridana 3 BRYOZOA Diaporoeci spp. 2 2 BRYOZOA Disporella californica 4 4 4 4 BRYOZOA Disporella fimbriata 4 4 34 BRYOZOA Disporella hispida. 4 BRYOZOA Disporella pacifica 4 BRYOZOA Disporella sp. 34 34 BRYOZOA Electra crustulenta 3 BRYOZOA Electra spp. 2 BRYOZOA Eurystomella bilabiata 4 BRYOZOA Fasciculipora pacifica 34 3 34 BRYOZOA Fasciculipora sp. 3 BRYOZOA Fenestrulina malusi 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Filicrisia franciscana 3 BRYOZOA Filicrisia geniculata 4 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Filicrisia sp. 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Flustrella corniculata 4 BRYOZOA Genelliporella globulifera 3 BRYOZOA Hincksina alba 4 BRYOZOA Hj-ncksina pacifica 34 34 BRYOZOA Hinksina velata 3 34 4 BRYOZOA Hinksina sp. 4 3 4 BRYOZOA Hincksinidae 3 BRYOZOA Hippodiplosia insculpta 234 2 BRYOZOA Hippoporella gorgonensis 4 4 34 4 BRYOZOA Hippoporella nitescens 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Hippoporella sp. 4 BRYOZOA Hippoporidra sp. 4 BRYOZOA Hippoporina californica 2 2 2 BRYOZOA Hippoporina porcellana 4 BRYOZOA Hippoporina contracta 2 2 2 BRYOZOA Hippothoa expansa 4 4 BRYOZOA Hippothoa flagellurn 34 3 34 34 BRYOZOA Hippothoa hyalina 34 34 234 34 BRYOZOA Holoporella brunnea 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Holoporella sp. 3 BRYOZOA Holoporellid 2 BRYOZOA Hornera pectinata 3 BRYOZOA Lacerna fistulata 3 BRYOZOA Lagenipora hippocrepis 3 3 3 BRYOZOA Lagenipora lacunosa 3 23 23 23 BRYOZOA Lagenipora mexj.cana 4 BRYOZOA Lagenipora punctulata 34 BRYOZOA Lagenipora socialis 34 BRYOZOA Lagenipora spinulosa 3 2 BRYOZOA Lichenopora buskiana 3 BRYOZOA Lichenopora novae-zealandi 3 A39

BRYOZOA Lichenopora sp. 3 3 BRYOZOA Lichenopora verrucaria 3 3 BRYOZOA Lyrula hippocrepis 234 234 234 234 BRYOZOA Membranipora fusca 234 234 234 234 BRYOZOA Membranipora membrancea 24 234 234 234 BRYOZOA Mernbranipora savarti 4 4 BRYOZOA Membranipora tuberculata 4 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Membranipora villosa 4 3 4 BRYOZOA Micropora coriacea 3 2 23 23 BRYOZOA Microporella californica 234 234 234 234 BRYOZOA Microporella ciliat,a 234 4 34 34 BRYOZOA MJ-croporella coronata BRYOZOA Microporella cribrosa 34 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Microporella gibbosula 34 3 34 34 BRYOZOA Microporella setiformis 4 BRYOZOA Microporella pontifica 3 3 3 BRYOZOA Microporella umbonata 34 34 234 BRYOZOA Microporella vibraculifera 34 24 234 34 BRYOZOA Mucronella major 4 4 34 34 BRYOZOA Mucronella sp. 3 3 BRYOZOA Onochyochella alu1a 4 BRYOZOA Onsuoecia sp. 3 3 BRYOZOA Parasmittina californica 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Parasmittina collifera 4 4 4 4 BRYOZOA Parasmittina crosslandi 3 BRYOZOA Parasmittina spathulifera 3 BRYOZOA Parasmittina sp. 3 BRYOZOA Parasmittina trispinosa 34 4 4 BRYOZOA Parasmi.ttina tubulata 4 BRYOZOA Pherusella brevituba 23 BRYOZOA Phidolopora pacifica 2 BRYOZOA Plagioecia anacapensis 4 3 BRYOZOA Plagioecia patina 4 BRYOZOA Plagioecia sarniensis 4 3 BRYOZOA Plagioecia sp. 4 34 34 BRYOZOA Plagioecia tortuosa 3 BRYOZOA Plagioecia tubiabortiva 4 4 BRYOZOA Porella compressa 3 3 BRYOZOA Porella porifera 234 4 34 34 BRYOZOA Porella spp. 2 BRYOZOA Proboscina major 4 4 4 BRYOZOA Puellina setosa 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Ranphostomella curvirostrata 3 3 BRYOZOA Reginella furcata BRYOZOA Reginella matt,oidea BRYOZOA Reginella murcronata 3 BRYOZOA Reginella nitida 3 BRYOZOA Retevirgula areolata 34 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Retevirgula tubulata 4 34 4 4 BRYOZOA Rhynchozoon bispinosum 3 3 3 3 BRYOZOA Rhynchozoon grandicella 34 34 34 34 A40

BRYOZOA Rhynchozoon rostraturn 234 234 234 234 BRYOZOA Rhynchozoon spicaturn 34 234 234 234 BRYOZOA Rhynchozoon tuberculatum 4 BRYOZOA Rhynchozoon tumulosum 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Schizomavella auriculata 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Schizoporella cornuta 34 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Schizoporella linearis 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Schizoporella sp. 3 BRYOZOA Schj-zoporella unicornis 2 BRYOZOA Schizoporellidae 3 BRYOZOA Schizotheca fissurella 4 34 BRYOZOA Scrupocellaria bertholetti 4 2 4 BRYOZOA Scrupocellaria diegensis 4 23 234 BRYOZOA Scrupocellaria ferox 4 BRYOZOA Scrupocellaria sp. 34 34 34 BRYOZOA Scrupocellaria talonis 34 4 BRYOZOA Scrupocellaria varians 4 4 4 BRYOZOA Snittina cordata 3 234 34 BRYOZOA Srnittina spathulifera 3 3 BRYOZOA Snithoidea prolifica 4 3 BRYOZOA Sonittoidea spp. BRYOZOA Stomatopora giranulata 4 BRYOZOA Thalamoporella californica 234 234 234 24 BRYOZOA Trypernatella umbonula 4 BRYOZOA Tubulipora admiranda 4 3 34 BRYOZOA Tublipora concinna 3 34 BRYOZOA Tublipora flabellaris 34 BRYOZOA Tublipora pacifica 34 34 BRYOZOA Tublipora pulchra 4 4 BRYOZOA Tublipora sp. 34 34 34 4 BRYOZOA Tublipora tuba 4 34 4 BRYOZOA Unidentif ied Ascophora 3 BRYOZOA Veleroa veleronis 34 4 BRYOZOA Victorella argryra 23 4 4 BRYOZOA Watersiporia cucullata 3 BRYOZOA * Alcyonidiun sp. BRYOZOA * Celleporaria brunnea

MOLLUSCA Acanthodoris spp. 2 2 24 MOLLUSCA Acmaea insessa 3 MOLLUSCA Acmaea nitra 3 MOLLUSCA Acmaea pelta 3 MOLLUSCA Acmaea sp. 4 34 34 MOLLUSCA Acmaeid unidentified 2 MOLLUSCA Aletes squarnigerus 4 34 MOLLUSCA Aplysia californica 4 4 MOLLUSCA Ast,raea gibberosa 23 MOLLUSCA Astraea undosa 234 234 34 MOLLUSCA Basilochiton sp. 3 MOLLUSCA Bittium sp. 3 MOLLUSCA Burchia redondoensis 34 234 34 A41

}4OLLUSCA Bursa californica 4 MOLLUSCA Cadlina flavomaculata 2 MOLLUSCA Calliostona sp. 2 MOLLUSCA Calliostorna variegata 4 MOLLUSCA Callistochiton sp. 34 MOLLUSCA Charnapellucida 34 34 234 34 MOLLUSCA Chiton unidentified 2 MOTLUSCA Conus californica 4 234 234 34 MOLLUSCA Crepidula sp. 3 3 23 3 MOLLUSCA Crepipatella sp. 23 23 23 23 MOLLUSCA Cyclostrema cookeanum 3 3 3 MOLLUSCA Cyclostremella sp. 3 3 MOLLUSCA Dendrochiton sp. 4 4 MOLLUSCA Dendrodoris albopunctata MOLLUSCA Dendrodoris sp. 4 4 4 MOLLUSCA Elephantellum sp. 3 4 3 MOLLUSCA Entodesma sp. 4 4 MOLLUSCA Flabellinopsis iodinea 34 34 3 MOLLUSCA Gari californica 2 MOLLUSCA Haliotis corrugata 34 4 34 MOLLUSCA Haliotis fulgens 2 MOLLUSCA Haliotis rufescens 4 MOLLUSCA Haliotis sp. 23 MOLLUSCA Hermissenda crassicornis 3 MOLLUSCA Hiatella arctica 34 23 MOLLUSCA Hinnites multirugosus 24 34 3 MOLLUSCA frus lanellifer 4 MOLLUSCA fschnochiton sp. 4 4 MOLLUSCA fselica obtusa 4 MOLLUSCA Jaton festivus 24 234 234 MOLLUSCA Kellettia keltettii 234 234 234 234 MOLLUSCA Leptochiton sp. 4 4 4 MOLLUSCA Leptopecten latiauritus 4 34 4 MOLLUSCA Maxwellia genma 2 MOLLUSCA Maxwellia sp. 4 MOLLUSCA Megathura crenulata 234 MOLLUSCA Itlicranellurn sp. 3 3 MOLLUSCA Mitra idae 24 24 24 UOLLUSCA Mitrella carinata 34 34 4 MOLLUSCA Mitrella spp. 2 2 MOLLUSCA Murex santarosana 3 3 3 MOLLUSCA Murex santarosansus 4 4 4 MOLLUSCA Norrisia norrisii 3 2 MOLLUSCA Ocenebra sp. 3 MOLLUSCA Octopus sp. 24 234 MOLLUSCA Petaloconchus compactus 4 4 MOLLUSCA Pododesmusmacroschisma 2 2 MOLLUSCA Protothaca staminea 3 MOLLUSCA Pseudochama exogyra 3 MOLLUSCA Pteropurpura trialatus 34 4 MOLLUSCA Pteropurpura vokezae 3 3 442

MOLLUSCA Rissoella californica 4 MOLLUSCA Seila sp. 3 MOLLUSCA Siliquaria sp. 4 4 4 4 MOLLUSCA Sprioglyphis li.tuella 34 34 34 34 MOLLUSCA Spiroglyphis sp. 3 3 3 3 MOLLUSCA Stenoplax sp. 4 MOLLUSCA Tegula aureotincta 4 234 MOLLUSCA Tegula regina 2 MOLLUSCA Tegula sp. 3 MOLLUSCA Thylaeodus sp. 34 4 3 MOLLUSCA Trinchesia lagunae 2 MOLLUSCA Trivia spp. 4 MOLLUSCA Turritellopsis sp. 3 MOLLUSCA Williarnia sp. 3 23 MOLLUSCA Zonaria spadicea 234 MOLLUSCA Unid. Aeolid 4 MOLLUSCA Unid. Chiton 4 MOLLUSCA Unidentif ied gastropod 2 MOLLUSCA * Acanthodori.s rhodoceras MOLLUSCA * Aglaja inermis (chelidonura) MOLLUSCA * A1disa sanguinea MOLLUSCA ,t AIia carinata MOLLUSCA * Amphissa versicolor MOLLUSCA * Aplysia vaccaria MOLLUSCA * Barbatia bailyi MOLLUSCA * Barleeia acuta MOLLUSCA * Bulla gouldiana MOLLUSCA * Calliostoma annulatum MOLLUSCA * Ceratostona nuttali MOLLUSCA * Cerithiopsis sp. MOLLUSCA * Chama arcana MOLLUSCA * Chlarnydoconcha sp. MOLLUSCA * Chrornodoris macfarlandi MOLLUSCA * Crassispira serniinflata MOLLUSCA * Crepidula dorsata MOLLUSCA * Cypraea spadicea MOLLUSCA * Diaulula sandiegensis MOLLUSCA * Donax gouldii MOLLUSCA * Doriopsilla albopinctata MOLLUSCA * Epitoniurn tincturn MOLLUSCA * Erato vit,ellina MOLLUSCA * Fusinus luteopictus MOLLUSCA * Glans subquadrata MOLLUSCA * Hinnites giganteus MOLLUSCA * Kellia laperousii MOLLUSCA * Lacuna unifasciata MOLLUSCA * Latiaxis oldroydi MOLLUSCA * Lima hernphilli MOLLUSCA * Lirularia sp. MOLLUSCA * Macron lividus MOLLUSCA * Melibe leonina A43

MOLLUSCA rt Milneria kelseyi MOLLUSCA :t Mitrella tuberosa MOLLUSCA * Murexiella santarosana MOLLUSCA * Mytilus edulis MOLLUSCA * Nassarius fossatus MOLLUSCA 'r Nassarius mendicus MOLLUSCA * Nassarius spp. MOLLUSCA * Olj.vella spp. MOLLUSCA * Opalia sp. MOLLUSCA * Ophiodermella ophioderma MOLLUSCA * Polycera sp. MOLLUSCA * Pteropurpura festiva MOLLUSCA * Pteropurapura rnacroptera MOLLUSCA * Pteropurapura vokesae MOLLUSCA * Rostanga prrlchra MOLLUSCA * Roperia poulsoni MOLLUSCA * Serpulorbis sqr.lamigerus MOLLUSCA * Sirnnia vidteri MOLLUSCA * Tegula eiseni MOLLUSCA * Terebra danai MOLLUSCA * Tonicella Lineata MOLLUSCA * Tricolia pulloides MOLLUSCA * Trivia californiana

ARTHROPODA Balanus tintinnabulum 23 23 23 ARTHROPODA Balanus spp. 2 ARTHROPODA Cancer spp. 2 ARTHROPODA Caprellidae 2 ARTHROPODA Grapsid, juvenile 2 ARTHROPODA fsopoda 3 3 3 ARTHROPODA Loxorhyncus grandis 3 ARTHROPODA Paguridae 23 23 23 23 ARTHROPODA Panulirus interruptus 34 234 234 ARTHROPODA Pugettia dal1i 4 ARTHROPODA Pycnogonun rickettsi 4 ARTHROPODA Scyra acutj.frons 4 4 2 ARTHROPODA Unid. Cancridea 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Caprellidea 4 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Garnmaridea 4 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Grapsidae 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Inachidae 4 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Isopoda 4 4 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Paguridae 4 4 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Sphaeromidae spp. 4 4 ARTHROPODA Unid. Stomatopoda 4 ARTHROPODA * Atnpithoe humeralis ARTHROPODA * Balanus tintinnabulun calif ARTHROPODA * Balanus trigonus ARTHROPODA * Cancer anphioetus ARTHROPODA * Cancer antennarius ARTHROPODA * Cancer anthonyi A44

ARTHROPODA * Cancer branneri ARTHROPODA * Cancer gracilis ARTHROPODA * Cancer jordani ARTHROPODA . * Cancer productus ARTHROPODA * Caprella californica ARTHROPODA * Ericthonius sp. ARTHROPODA * Heptacarpus palpator ARTHROPODA * Hippolyte spp. ARTHROPODA * Hippolyte californiensis ARTHROPODA * Hippolyte clarki ARTHROPODA * Jassa falcata ARTHROPODA * Lepas pacifica ARTHROPODA * Lophopanopeus sp. ARTHROPODA * Lysmata californica ARTHROPODA * Loxorhynchus crispatus ARTHROPODA * Pachygrapsus crassipes ARTHROPODA * Paracerceis cordata ARTHROPODA * Pentidotea resecata ARTHROPODA * Pleustes platlpa ARTHROPODA * Pugettia producta ARTHROPODA * Taliepus nuttali

ENCHINODER Anphiodia urtica 2 ENCHINODER Amphipholis sp. 4 ENCHINODER Astrometis sertulifera 2 ENCHINODER Astropecten armatus 2 ENCHINODER Astropecten verrilli 4 ENCHINODER Centrostephanus coronatus 3 34 ENCHINODER Dermasterias inbricata 2 234 2 ENCHINODER Henricia leviuscula 2 234 3 ENCHINODER Lissothuria nutriens 4 4 4 ENCHTNODER Lovenia cordiformis 2 2 ENCHINODER Lyt,echinus anamesus 234 234 234 ENCHTNODER Ophioderma panamense 4 4 ENCHINODER Ophioderma papillosa 3 2 ENCHINODER ophioplocus esmarki 2 ENCHINODER Ophionereis annulata 4 ENCHINODER Ophiopteris papillosa 2 ENCHINODER Ophiothrix spiculata 24 24 34 24 ENCHINODER Orthasterias koehleri 23 ENCHTNODER Parast,ichopus panrimensis 34 34 34 ENCHTNODER Parastichopus spp. 2 2 2 ENCHINODER Patiria rniniata 23 23 234 23 ENCHTNODER Pisaster brevispinus 4 23 234 24 ENCHTNODER Pisaster gigantlus 234 234 234 234 ENCHINODER Pisaster ochraceus 2 ENCHINODER Strongylocentrotus franciscan 234 24 234 234 ENCHTNODER Strongylocentrotus purpuratus 4 24 234 ENCHINODER Unidentif ied optriuroidea 34 4 34 34 ENCHTNODER * Dendrast,er sp. ENCHINODER * Eupentacta quinquesernj.ta A45

ENCHTNODER * Linkia colurnbiae ENCHINODER * ophiothrix rudis

TT'NICATA Chelysorna producta 234 234 23 TUNICATA Clavellina huntsmani 2 TUNICATA Cystodites lobatus 234 234 234 234 TUNICATA Didemnum carnulentum 234 234 234 234 TUNICATA Didemnidae 34 23 24 2 TUNICATA Eudistona diaphanes 4 TUNICATA Eudistoma psarnnion 24 TI'NTCATA Euherdrnania claviformis 234 234 234 23 TUNICATA Polyclinurn planurn 3 TUNICATA Pycnoc1avella stanleyi 23 TUNICATA Pyura haustor 234 2 TUNICATA Styela montereyensis 234 234 234 23 TUNICATA Trididennum opacum 4 4 34 4 TUNICATA Unidentified colonial 4 3 TUNICATA Unidentified solitary 4 TUNICATA * Aplidium californicum TT'NICATA * Diplosorna macdonalid TUNICATA * Styela truncata TUNICATA * Styela plicata

PrscEs Aetobatus californicus 4 4 PISCES Anisotremus davidsoni 0t 014 23 PTSCES Arbaciosa rhessodon 2 PTSCES Atherinid 0t oLz4 oL24 PISCES Brachyistius frenatus 01 o]-2 01 PISCES Chromis punctipinnis 234 01 PISCES Coryphopterus nicholsi 23 24 23 PTSCES Cynoscion nobilis 01 01 PISCES Danalichthys vacca 2 01 0123 oI24 PISCES Enbiotoca jacksoni 34 013 23 24 PISCES Gibbonsia elegans 4 PISCES Girella nigricans 24 01 014 or234 PISCES Halichoeres semicinctus 4 oL234 234 PTSCES Heterostichus rostratus OI ot2 013 PISCES Hypsypops rubicunda 4 3 3 PISCES Medialuna californiensis 23 01 013 014 PTSCES Oxyjulis californicus 4 013 oL234 01234 PISCES Paralabrax clathratus 234 o1234 oL234 234 PISCES Paralabrax nebuli_fer 234 234 oI234 oL234 PTSCES Phanerodon furcatus 3 o].'2 oL234 01 PISCES Pimelometopon pulchrum 24 01 ot24 24 PISCES Pneumatophorus diego 4 PISCES Rhacochilus toxotes 3 4 PISCES Scorpaena guttata 34 2 PTSCES Scorpaenichthys marmoratus 4 PISCES Sebastes atrovirens 3 PISCES Sernicosslphus pulcher 3 3 3 3 PTSCES Sphyraena argentea 013 01 014 A46

PISCES Trachurus symmetricus 10 10 01 PTSCES Unidentified Cottidae 4 PISCES Unidentified turbot 4 PISCES Xenistius californiensis 0134 01 PTSCES Xystreurys liolepis 2 SOK UNITS 2 &, 3 PTSCES Inp Alopia vulpinas 2 PISCES Inp Amphistichus argenteus 24 PfSCES frnp Anchoa compressa 234 PISCES fnp Anchoa delicatissima 34 PISCES lrnp Anisotremus davidsoni 234 PISCES fmp Atherinops affinis 234 PISCES Irnp Atherinopsis californiensis 34 PISCES fmp Atractoscion nobilis 24 PISCES rmp Balistes polylepis 4 PISCES Imp Brachyistius frenatus 234 PISCES Irnp Cheilotrerna saturnum 234 PISCES Irnp Chilara taylori 234 PISCES Imp Chrornis punctipinnis 234 PISCES Inp Citharichthys stig:maeus 234 PTSCES Inp Clupea herrengus 3 PfSCES Inp Cynatogaster aggregata 234 PISCES Inp Damalichthys vacca 234 PfSCES Inp Dorosoma petenense 34 PISCES lrnp Embiotoca jacksoni 234 PISCES Imp Engraulis mordax 234 PISCES Inp Genyonernus lineatus 234 PISCES Imp Gibbonsia elegans 4 PISCES Irnp Gibbonsia jenkensi 2 PISCES frnp Gibbonsia metzi 24 PISCES Inp Gibbonsia montereyensis 4 PISCES Imp Gibbonsia sp. 4 PISCES Imp Girella nigricans 34 PISCES Imp Gobiidae 4 PISCES Irnp Gymnothorax mordax 234 PISCES Inp Glannura marmorata 34 PISCES Irnp Halichoeres semicinctus 234 PISCES Inp Hernosilla azurea 234 PISCES Inp Heterodontus francisci 34 PISCES lrup Heterosti.chus rostratus 234 PISCES Imp Hyperprosopon argenteum 234 PISCES fnp Hypsoblennius gilberti 234 PfSCES Inp Hlpsoblennius j enkinsi 2 PISCES Irnp Hypsoblennius spp. 34 PISCES Imp Hypsopsetta guttulata 234 PISCES Irnp Hypsypops rubicundus 34 PfSCES fnp Leptocottus annatus 34 PISCES fnp Leuresthes tenuis 234 PISCES fnp Medialuna californiensis 234 PISCES frnp Menticirrhus undulatus 234 447

PISCES Irnp Micrometrus ninirnus 23 PISCES frnp Mustelus californicus 4 PISCES Inp Mustelus henlei 24 PISCES Inp Myliobatis californica 34 PfSCES frnp Neoclinus blanchardi 4 PISCES Imp Ophichtus zophochir 2 PISCES Inp otophidiurn scrippsi 234 PfSCES frnp oxyjulis californica 23 PISCES Inp Paralabrax clathratus 234 PISCES Irnp Paralabrax maculatof asciatus 34 PISCES Inp Paralabrax nebulifer 234 PISCES Imp Paralichthys californicus 234 PISCES fnp Peprilus sirnillirnus 234 PISCES Inp Phanerodon furcatus 234 PTSCES fnp Platyrhinoidis triseriata 34 PISCES Irnp Pleuronichthys coenosus 234 PISCES Irnp Pleuronichthys ritteri 234 PfSCES frnp Pleuronichthys verticalis 34 PISCES Inp Porichthys myriaster 234 PISCES Irnp Porichthys notatus 234 PISCES Inp Porichthys spp. 3 PfSCES Imp Rhacochilus toxotes 234 PISCES Irnp Rhinobatos productus 34 PISCES Imp Roncador stearnsi 234 PISCES Irnp Sardinops sag:ax 4 PISCES Inp Scomber japonicus 34 PISCES frnp Scorpaena guttata 234 PISCES Irnp Scorpaenichthys narmoratus 34 PISCES lrnp Sebastes auriculatus 4 PISCES Irnp Sebastes paucispinis 4 PfSCES Imp Sebastes rastrelliger 34 PfSCES lrnp Sebastes sp. 24 PISCES Inp Semicossyphus pulchur 234 PISCES Irnp Seriola dorsalis 4 PISCES frnp Seriphus politus 234 PISCES fnp Sphyraena argentea 34 PTSCES Inp Squalus acanthias 23 PTSCES Inp Squatina californica 4 PISCES Inp Syngnathus leptorhynchus 2 PTSCES fnp Syngnathus spp. 234 PISCES Inp Synodus lucioceps 23 PISCES fnp Torpedo californica 34 PISCES Inp Trachurus symmetricus 34 PISCES Inp Unbrina roncador 234 PfSCES fnp Urolophus halLeri 234 PISCES Inp Xenistius californiensis 234 PISCES Inp Xystreurys liolepis 3 MAMMALIA Zalophus californianus 23 A4B

APPENDTX 5

Techniqpes for establishing kelp beds

Numerous projects to establish new kelp beds or restore degraded kelp habitats hav€ been undertaken in Southern california.

Although the goals are not id,entical, the technigues used tend to be the same, and these are sunmarized, in this append.ix.

Most of the effort for establishing kelp bed.s has been devoted to transplant techniques. However, site selection and preparation are also important. One focus of site preparation has been the removal of dense growths of other species of brown algae, which could inhibit the recruitrnent of juvenile Macrocvstis. A much more important focus, however, has been control of sea urchins

(particularly Stonqvlocentrotus purpuratus and, S. franciscanus) .

Before L976, urchins on palos verdes were crushed. by hammer- wielding divers. Hammering in the most select,ive and least complex method of urchin control, and is the most cost,-effective method, when urehins average less than s/m2 (I.Iilson and, Mcpeak 1993).

Urchin control has also been accomplished, by the use of guicklime

(calciurn oxide, Cao) to chemically destroy the urchins. fnitially, quicklirne was dispersed in pebble form from the surface of the water, but after J,976 a d,iver-operated. d.evice for dispersal allowe4 better control and greater efficiency. The most recent technological advance in urchin control, a diver-d.irected, suction dredge, has been used by Kelco company. Before using the suction 449

dredge, urchins are concentrated by baiting a location with a mesh bag fiIled with kelpi after a few days, urchins have aggregated around the bag, facilit,ating their removal by the d.redge. Fina11y, a colnmercial sea urchin fishery has developed, and, although it is unrelated to kelp transplantation efforts, in some situations it has contributed to the success of restoration projects.

An irnportant aspect of rnany kelp restoration projects has been grazer control. The control of one important group of grazers, sea urchins, has been discussed above under site preparation. Fish grazing, particularly by the opaleye, Girerla nicrricans, and, the halfrnoon, Medialuna californiensis, can also cause considerable damage to transplanted kelp in Southern california. Although fish grazing was not a problem during restoration efforts at point Loma, transplanted Macrocvstis lrere apparently severely damaged.at palos Verdes. Fish traps and spearfishing were not effective control techniques. GiIl nets captured, large numbers of herbivorous fish, but also killed many nonherbivorous fish. Fish exclosures required. excessive maint,enance. Eventually, efforts to control fish grazing were abandoned (Wilson and Mcpeak 1983).

After site preparation, rnost projects have relied, upon transplanting adurt kelp plants (sporophytes) to establish a new bed. At Paros verdes, two methods were used. to attach the. transplanted plants to the substrate (wilson et al. ],gTg). some plants were attached to floats, which srere in turn attached, to 2.5- 3.L cm anchor chains by 0.5 m nylon lines; holdfasts of plants attached with this technigue were prepared by racing nylon Lines A50

through the haptera and tying the holdfast to floats. The

preferred method of attachment, at least for smaller plants, was to secure the kelp plant directly to the substrate with inner tube circrets. other rnethods for transplanting adults have been

developed more recently, such as placing holdfasts in weighted. mesh bags (Neushul and Harger lgBS).

Another transplant technigue has been deveroped for young Macrocvstis plants that utilizes other vegetation. young

Macrocvstis plants were secured to 7 cn high rstubsrr of

Ptervctophora and Eisenia with rubberbands (Wilson and, Mcpeak 19S3). The Macrocystis plant was pushed, to the base of the stub to minimize the distance the haptera had to grow to reach the substrate.

Although most kelp restoration projects have transplanted adult or juvenile Macrocvstis plants, earlier life stages can also be utilized. North (r9Br) reports using embryonic Macrocystis sporophytes that had been grown in mass cultures to attempt to establish or restore kelp beds in Southern California. Many of the attempts to use cultured Macrocvstis failed,, but North attributed. reappearance of kelp in a few instances to the influence of the sporophytes be dispersed. Neushul attempted to establish kelp on an artificial reef by spraying the reef boulders with a gamet,ophyte solution before they were placed in the water (J. Benson, personal communication). Dean has been using outplants of gametophytes and rnicrosporophytes, as well as juvenile plants (see Dean 19gG). The microscopic sporophytes have been cultured on artificial rope 451

substrates in the laboratory before being outplanted, into the field. 452

APPENDTX 6

Techniques for restoring coastal wetlands

(Fron.zed1er, J., M. Josseryn and,c. onuf. rgg2. Restoration techniques, research, and rnonitoring: vegetation. rn: M. Josselyn, ed. Wet,land restoration and enhancernent in California. workshoi Proceedings, California Sea Grant Collect prograrn publication, " Report No. T-CSGCP-oo7. pp. 73-74. A53

Restoration Techniq.t€s, Research,and Monitoring : Vegetation

Jov Zedler, San Diego State lJniaersity, San Diego, CA Michael Josselyn,Tiburon Center t'or EnaironmentalStudies, Tiburon, CA Chris top h er Onuf , Uniu e r s i ty of C ttlit'a rn ia, San t a Barb ar a, CA

lntroduction drought. Non-tidal marshes,which aresubject to varving rainfail, river tlow, and evaporation,mav encounterthe arsh vegetation provides a transition from greatest extremes and the least predictablehvdrologic aquatic to terrestrialhabitats. To manv peopte, regimes. Intertidal marshes experienceregular of wetlands svmbolize a highlv productive eco- rycles inundarion and exposure, which facilitatewatering and system which supports abundant wildlife; to others,thev drainage, but plants encounterthe additionalstresses of are wastelands suitable onlv for trash dumping or off- salinit-v.In coastal marshes of southem Califomia, soil road vehicle use. Scientificstudv of Califomia'smarshes hypersalinifv is a major stresstbr vascularplants. ln addi- has provided turther views of what thesehabitats are like, tion, desiccafion during periods of rain-free neap tides is how they function in the total wetland ecosvstem,and stressful to soil algal mats. In central and northem Cali- how some species might be established in attempts to fomia. hvpersaline conditions can occtrr during suruner restoreor enhancedisturbed habitats. months, but are restrictedto the high marsh. Our goais in this paper are to summarize the ecologi- Soil saliniv is a maior controllingfactor of both com- cal features of wetland vegetation, review the data avail- position and productiviW of marshes.Where soils are able on vegetationestablishment in Californiawetlands, saline to hwersaline, a varielv of halophvtes, notablv outline the ecologicalconsiderafions which must be made pickleweed and cordgrass, occur. Where soils are less in planning marsh establishment. and suggest research saline to fresh, cattails, bulrushes, and sedgesdominate programs which are necessaryto improve marsh restora- and vascular plant productivity is higher. Throughout tion efforts. The paper discusses emergent and sub- these marshes, soil algal mats develop when moisture merged vegetation, with emphasis on salt marshes, for and light permit. With a dense overstory, algal growth is which the most data exist. C. Onuf conributed informa- light-limited; with a more open canopy, algal productivity tion on eelgrass habitats; M. summarized San |osselyn can equal that of the vascular plants (Zedler 1980).Other Francisco Bay and northem Califomia marshes; and ]. factors which are known to influence marsh stnrcture and Zedler summarized southem Califomia marshes. We function indude microtopograph;r, sediment tyPe, and thank Fran Demgen, Tom Harvey, and Oliver for fohn tidal regime (Table 1). their critical reviews of the manuscipt. The basic function of marsh plants is primary pro- Marsh Characteristics ductivif.v, however only a handful of productivity srudies have been done in Califomia (reviewed by Macdonald Throughout Califomia, wetland habitats are charac- and Winfield unpubl.). Only one study examined algal terized by variable hydrologic regimes. Tidal marshesare productivity, and even the srudies of vascular plant pro- regularly inundated and exposed. All marshesare subject ductivilv are difficult to compare because of different to seasonal freshwater input, occasionalheavy flooding, measurementtechniques. At present,itappears thatCali- and long periods of exposure and evaporation. These fomia's coastal salt marshesare probably as productive as extremes result in some conditions which are highly those on the Eastand Gulf of lvlexicocoasts, but that algal stressful and other conditions which are beneficialto and mats mav plav a more important role here, especially in responsible for high plant productivity. For example,var- hypersaline wetlands (Onuf ef al. 7978, Winfield 1980, iable water levels may enhance or reduce plant growth, Zedler 1980). Export of organic matter from marshes to depending on the timing and duration of standing water/ tidal creeks has been identified by Winfield (1980),but Southem Califomia Central & Northern San FranciscoBay Atkibute 32"-35"NLat. Califomia 35"-13"NLat. 3f5Y-36"2(IN Lat.

Physiography Narrow river vallevs; small Small wetlands on coast Broadplains at MHFIW wetlands; tidal creiks & protected bv sand dunes; traversedby deep sloughs; channelsbut few large gradual sloping marshes gradual slopescolonized by embavments within embavments with Spart ina foliosaor precipitous variable occurrence of margins undero.rtting high Spartina loliosa marsh Precipitation and period of 10-30" winter 30-100' fall-winter-sPring 20-.10"winter-sPring maior surt'acerunotT Sediment r.vpe Sandv sediments on coast, Sandy sediments on coast, Primarily clays clavs within embavments clavs within embayments Salinitv Soils generallv hypersaiine Northem marshes are Seasonallvhwersaline all year generallv near or below seawater salinity Vegetation dominants pliox lower elevations Spartinafoliosa (variable Spar t in a iol iosa (variable Spartina (below MHW) occurrence) occurrence) Salicorniaeuropaea Salicorniaoirginica Scirpusrobustus I Batismaritima I rand i I ia I Salicomiabigeloaii Salicornia uirginica Fr anl,cnia g fo laumeaumosa laumea carnosa Cuscutasalina I Suaedacalifornica Frankenia grandifolia Salicorniavirginirl I Frankmiagrandifolia Cotulacoronopifolia t Tiglochin concinnum Cordylanthusmollb higher Monanthochloe Ii t toralis Tiglochin maritima Distichlisspicata elevations 5al i com ia sub t erm i nalis Spergulana manna Atriplexpatula ssp. hastata (above lvtFIW) Distichlisspicata Distichlis spicata Limonium califomianm Atriplex patula ssp. hastata Vascular plant productivitv Generallv under 1 kg/m!/vr Rangesbetween 0.5- 1.5 kg/m!/Yr and canopy strucrure due to hwersaline soils; relativelydense canopv; higher relativelv open canopy ratesin areasoi freshwater inPut. Soil algal mat development Often lush algal mats with Dense macroalgalmats Algal growth restricted, verv high productivilv (Enteromorphal in Pannes to oPen PannesIn fiErsn; (at times equalling vascular and on mudflatsadiacent limited growth on mudflats plant productivilv) to marsh; productivitv due to high turbidiry exceedsthat of marshPlants Herbivoresand detritivores moiluscs Ceithideacalifomica Assimineaulifonriu Nassaius obsleta Melampusolioaceus Ooatellamyo*tis Modblus demissus ,Assimineacalifomiu Maamabalthica amphipods Orchatoideaspp. Orchestia traskiana Ampeliscamillri Corcphiumspiniome isopods Sphaeromapmtadon crabs Uaoenulata Hanigrapus o regonatsis Hemigrrpus orqonensis Pachygrcpsuscrassipa Hmtigrapsusorryonens is fish vario-usspeciesif fish useatgae and detritus during partsof their life cycles Camivores fish in arrow gobies, killifish arrow gobies, killifish arrow golies, killifish saltmarsh channels birds Belding's Savannah sparrow; willet, lon g-billed curlew, Samuel'ssong sParrow, frequenthg light-footed clapper rail; marbled godwit, Ereatblue Alameda song sParrow, saltsnarsh willet, long-billed cr.ulew, heron. snowy egret, common Calilomia black rail, vegetation long-billed marsh wren, egret, Califomia clapper Califomia clapper rail, pintail, marsh hawk, rail, merlin salt marsh yellowthroat, Say's phoebe Breatblue heron, great egret, Anerican bittem Rare.andendangered sPeoes. anurulls California least tem American peregrine falcon Salt marsh hawest mouse Light-footed clapFr rail California leasttem Califomia least tem Eelding's Savannah sparrow Califomia dapper rail Califomia clapper rail Arnerican peregine falcon San Francisco garter snake plants Cordulan th us miri limus ssg. Cordylan thus maitimus ssq. Cordylanthusnantimus ssP. manttmus palustris mollis A55

Rn torationo f Vege tntion 65

measurementsbv Onuf cf a/. (1978)did not provide point frlr .lttempts to restoreor enhancecoastal wetland stronlj support tor a net export. Eoth studiesconcemed plant communities. lvluchless iniormation is availabletbr southern Calitomiacoastal rvetlands. Onlv limitedesti- Cali tbrnia's inlrnd marshes. matesior freshor br.rckishmarsh productiviv areavail- At fimes. rvetland crearion has been promoted to able ior Calitomia(Ahvater ct (ll. 1979\. perform tasksrvhich might otherwisebe too expensiveor ditiicult to accomplishthrough other means.Dredge spoil RestorationObjectives disposal has become increasinglyexpensive due to re- duced availabiliw of disposal sites necessitatinghigh The objectivesof wetland enhancementand restora- fransportation costs and the decontaminationor control tion projects capitalize on high biologicalproductivit_v. oi polluted sediments.Wetland creation has provided the The most commonlv stated objectiveis the preservation means to justif-vshallow aquaticand nearshoredisposal and creation of wildlife habitat. Wetlands serve as the processesin major t-eedingareas to migratorv birds along the Pacific and to stabilizethe material.Microbiological colonized b_vmarsh plants can lead to more th'rv.rv(Certenberg 1.979;Recher 1965) and asa nurseryto sediments permanent removalof healv metalsthan otherwiseecon- manv larvaland juvenilefish (CalifomiaSea Grant 1981). possible(lVindom 'L9V).The completionof the Shelter is provided bv vegetation,both as a directhabitat omicallv llaterial ResearchProgram by the U.S. Army and in reducing waves, currents, and rvind. Severalspe- Dredged led to several booksheivesof cies oi birds are directlv dependenton marshvegetation, Corps oi Engineers has and habitat destruction has endangeredseveral species (Table 1). A guiding mand.rte has been to protect and diking expand wetlands wherever possible (Califomia Re- filling sourcesAgencv 1977). Disturbances(dredging, filling, and alteringhydrol- dredging ogic and seclimentafionclcles) have substantiallymod- infroduction of exoticspecies ified remaining (Table Calitbmia's marshh.rbitats l), and reduced tidal tlushing "restoration" implies the go.rloi refuming thesesvstems marsh becomesmore salinethan normal to their pre-disrurbancecondition. Just horv thesedis- (in drv vears) turbanceshave changed marshesis almost impossibleto marsh becomesless saline than normal assess.We have no pristine marshesleft rvith which to (in rvet vears) compare more disturbed habitats.Even if we knew what toxins and t'ertilizersin runoff historical marsh conditions rvere, too additional tacs ttertilizersmav en hancevegetation make it impossible to reproduce thoseconditions. First, toxins mav stressvegetation since the characteroi marshesis linked to their respective altered runoif oatterns watersheds,restoration of a marshrvould requirerestora- increasing t'lbod tiows tion of the watershed as well-clearlv an impractical,if decreasing tlood tlows not impossible, requirement. Second, marshesare d1r- constricfing period of flooding namic communifies, constantlv changingin responseto prolonging period of flooding sedimentation, flooding, rising sealevel, and other coas- altered sedirnentinput tal processes.On a geologic time scale, their existenceis increased sedimeht loads short (usuallv measured in thousandsof years),and it decreasedsediment loads would be difficult and arbitrary to recreatea single stage in their development. Table 2: Man-madedisturbanca to cwtal mal:,hcr., For what, then, should a marsh restoration proiect strive? What should be the "model communitv?" Clearlv a plan for saltmarsh establishment or restorationwill have reports (Hemer and Co. 1980) and a few dredgespoil to be basedon generalized ecologicalinformation on what wetlands have been createdin Califomia. natural marshes were probablv like, developedin con- In addition, marshes have potential for tertiir,v freat- junction with the managementgoals of the localiv and of ment of selvage eftluent. Wetlands are frequently labeled the region. An overview of saltmarsh vegetation is given as nutrient fraps, though their ability to remove nutients bv Macdonald (19Ta, b) and Zedler (1982),and several varies considerably (Valiela et aI. 1978; Winfield 1980). marshes have been described individually bv authors Most pilot investigationshave foosed on freshwaterwet' cited in Table 5. These papers should provide the sarting lands (Sloey et al. 79781and several projects have been completed and are under investigationin Califomia(Bas' tian and Reed 1979).A freshwater-brackishwater marsh Table 1: Comparisn of saltma rs h cln rac t erist ics fo r Cclifom ia has recentlv been proposed for San FranciscoBay using wetlands. phvtogmgraphic Coastalwetlands .lelimited by freatedeitluent (StateCoast. Conserv. 1981). Future large p rw i nca MacD onald ( 7977a, b. Aut ho n ti6 scimtilic from t'or will depend nama: plants- Munz( 1959,5il:intertebratr-Smilh and scale marsh creation for sewage treatment Carlton(797il; and common nam6: birds-Cogsu'ell(197n, heavilv on the results of these pilot projects to prove their effectiveness(SFRWQCB 192). A56

66 Zallc1IosseWAOnuf

These three "restoration goals" (restoringwhat has been degraded, tuming dredge spoil depositsinto wild- modifi cation oi hvdrological regime lit'ehabitat, and rreatingsewage eftluent) each require the provide tidal fl6w creationof approriate marshcommunities. Unfortunatelv alter channelsand creeks we have insufficient backgroundintbrmarion on the past control Freshwaterrunoff (increaseor extent of specific marsh communifiesin Califomia. We decrease) can provide onlv generalguidance on what marsh vpes provide suitable habitat for vegetation have beenmostaltered and hencedeserve greaterconsid- establishment eration tbr restoration.Re-establishment oiSpartina foliosa establish appropriate elevations with in southem Calitomia; removaloi exoticssuch as Avicat- dredge spoils nrain Mission Bavmarsh; and restorationoi the transition contour topography to proper elevation zone habitat in San FranciscoBav deserve such attention. & slope We have greaterintbrmation on the habitatneeds of cer- cageout herbivores tain wildlife speciesand such data should be induded in stabiLizesoil irrigate to reduce salinif.v restoration plans. The best data base concems marsh plants which are urilized bv water-relatedbirds as food augment nafural vegetationestablishment (e.9. widgeon grass, Ruppia maitina; alkali bulrush, with planlings Scirptts robusttts)or cover (cordgrass, Spartinat'oliosa, fot light-tboted clapperrail nesthg habitaUpickleweed, Sali- Techniquesused to enlnnce Dlant habitats in corniauirginicn.nesfing habitat for the Belding'sSavannah ;Xrffij sparrow, Calitbrniaclapper rail, and the black rail). life using coastalmarshes migrate trom one to another and uti.lizethe collecfiveassets oi theservetlands, plan- i. ivlaintain or exDand the naturai varietv ning for marshrestoration projects should be coordinated ot habitatswitfiin the wetland. Desie; within the region. if not within the state. Objectives tbr heterogeneous topographv aid which cannot be met lvithin one site mav be given higher saliniff regimes to create brackish and priorilv tor another. saltmarsh vegetation,pools, salt tlats, and transitionalareas. Marsh RestorationTechniques Create habitats for endangeredplants The techniques used to meet the above obiectives and animals. Usuallv involves estab- include modifuing water circulation, establishingnew' lishing dominant phhts such as cord- (Table grass and pickleweed to support the substrateelevations, and planting {). Removalof endangered specieswithin region. Mav man-made leveesand dikes hasbeen the most irequentlv also include creationoi isolatedupland used method to restoretidal tlow; however,channel exca- and lransitionalplant communifies. varion mav also be required to reduce mosquito prob- Use oi plant communifies to improve lems. Dischargeof treated sewage effluent to createi water qualitv. Irnprove tidal flushing diversified wetland habitat is an important altemativeto into restricted areas and/or use of dike breaching,but is subject to water qualiw and public treated effluent to increasewater flow health constraints. Providing suitable elevations for the and effluent quality. establishmentof wetland vegetation in restorationshas Creation of vegetatedcorridors to facili- proven to be difficult from an engineering standpoint. tate movement of animals between iso- Ercess disposal of dredge spoils has resulted in numerous lated wetlands. "marshes" with elevations above normal tidal intluence and 5. Planting of vegetation to reduce shore- fosselyn and Atwater 1982).Excavation of channels line erosion and stabilizedredge spoil. earthmoving within the restoration prior to dike breach- ing have been used to establish.specific elevations and habitats, but can be quite costlv compared to other resto- Table3: Genenlgoals gioen oegetunonatablishment t'or ration techniques.Planting of marsh vegetation,particu- whm enhancingor ratoring wetlanls. larlv Spartina t'oliosa,has been tested under a varietv oi Table 3 summarizesa number of general goals which conditions in Califomia and is reviewed h Table5. On the have been given for previous marsh restoration projec6. other hand, natural establishmentof marsh vegetation Basicallv, the overail plan has been to recreate tidally following habitat creation has been followed in several flushed wetlands with more speciesor a more diverse marshes.At a restorationin northern San FranciscoBav, assemblageof speciesthan currentlv exists. Since one site Faber (1980)reported that narural establishmentof pick- will probably not meet all of the restorationobjectives for leweed and cordgrass was greatest between the third and a region, (i.e. habitat for various endangeredspecies such fourth year of the restoration. Pickleweed, however, as least tems. light-footed and Califomia dapper nils, spread far more mpidly than cordgrass and comprised various salt marsh sparrows, and harvestmice), and wild- over 95 percent oi the biomass by the fourth year. In A57

ofionofVqetation Mn 67

Central and Topic General Southern Cal Northern Cal San Francisco Bav l. Plantcommunitv fvtacdonaldQ9na,b) Zedler (1982) MacGinitie(1935) descnphon for Mahalland Park(1975) Cal Fishand Game Vod 0965) Proctorct dr. (1980) selection of (7970-78) Atwaterand Hedel Macdonald (1967) Shapiro and Assoc. (7976) appropriate species Hawey et al. (1976) Purer (19{2) [e79l Atwateretal. (1979) Zedler (79V) Hinde (19S1) Massey & Zembal Mall (1959) [e79) Warme (11b9) 2. Conceptualplanninq Carbisch (1977) Smith atc/. (1975) Terrascan(1979) (1982) and methods oi site Woodhouse (1979) Harvevefal. Firle and Smith (1977) Camp, Dresser,and preparation Envir. (1978) Lab. Sorensen,unpubl. McKee. and Madrone Johnsonand Assoc.(1980) McGuinness(1975) 3. ,Endangeredspecies Cal Fishand Came Massey (1979) naoltat needs (7e74) Shellhammerand Fox and Knudsen Harvev, unpubl. (1981) Jonesand Stokes Dunn (1981) (7979) Masseyand Zembal (7e7e) Zembaland Massev (1e81) 4. Wastewater Tchobanoglousand Gearheartand Demgen(1979) treatment Culp (1e8d) Fhney (1981) Cederquist Prolects Demgen(1981) and Roche(1979) 5. Vegetation establish- Envir. Lab. (1978) Zedler (1980,1981a, ment includint Oliver and Reillv Newcombe and Pride Maguire and 1981b) (1981) propagule (1e76) selection, Heuterman(1978) Zedler et al. (1979_) storage Hawev et al. (19821 and handling, Kadlecand Wentz Nordblr et aI. (1980) planrrng techniques,- (r971) Niesen and Josselyn and natural (1981) recolonization Mason (1980)

6. Substrate Garbisch(197) Hawey et al. (1982) requirements oi Envir. Lab. (1978) vegetahon

7. Costsand Envir. Lab. (1978) maintenance Terrascan(1979) US Army Corps(7976) requirements Camp. Dresser,and Josselvnand McKee, and Madrone Anpater (19E2) Assoc. (1980)

Table 5: Reccntlitoature on uqetation atabtishmail lorQlipnia wstal and atuarine uegand rctomtions.

southem San Francisco Bay sparsestands pickleweed of obstades. The problems r:rnge from environmental were observed in the Hayvard restorationwitirin tne nrst stresses(wave force, subsidence,hypersalinitv) to biolog- year, but even after two yea$, no cordgrus had invaded ical restraints (competition with othei species,herbivoryI. despite extensive areasoi suitableelevaion (Josselwrand Perez 1981).Relativel;r high soil salinitiesm"i i"t iSit,""J SubmergedSeagrasses germination at rhis site itricn *", foi"itJ a salt evap_ salinir.v ptay: importanr rotein regutatiig Recent reviews of the vast literature of seagnss eco- _o_T,o..Sol 1n (Phillips ra tes of na tural plan t establishmin t and vegetativi spreaj sytt"qf and McRoy 198O, McRoy and Helfferich in southern Califomia as weU (Zedler 19gib). Regaiatess 7977,Tluyer et a|.7975)summarize the characteristicsof techniqyes eelgrass beds and list gf F" used, the examples i* fJw, and the values that argue for their in- "* theirperiod of existence too short io provide an instruc- corporation in coastal wetland restoration projects. Some tional guide for marsh restoration in bUfomia. At pres_ of them are as follows: ent, restoration must be viewed as experirnental. 1. himary production is very high. Based on the However, in the processof performing these shrdies, difference between maximum andminimum stand- a ntrrnber of limiting factors have been re;ealed (Table 6) ing cops sampled during a year, eetgrassproductiv- and furure projects should focr.rson overcoming these ity in South and North Humboldt Bay wis 590 and A58

Zallcr,IossWAOnuf

Northern California Attribute Southern Califomia Central California San FranciscoBay

Sourceof vegetanon limitedarea ot marshes; isolatedwetlands: sourcesusuallv readilv propagules most is protected as sourceslimited availablethroughout Bav; endangeredspecies habitat seed sourceslimited for cordgrass Seed production & seedsare abundant for cordgrassnot found at cordgrassseeds available in seedling production cordgrass& pickleweed, but all locations;pickleweed soecificareas, collections germination ratesare low; abundant siroukl takeplace in Oct.; collectionof seedsdisrurb pickleweed seedsreadilv marshvegetafion which is available susceptibleto trampling nafural reproduction bv naturalreoroduction seed in fresher portion of predominintlv vegetative estuarv; otherwise vegetative Site characteristics bare soils are orten watershed disrupted by tidal tlow restrictedby extremelv hypersaline upstream activities dikes;subsidence oi land (over100 ppt) due to causing increased due to groundwaterwith- evaporation sedirnenta tion/ pollu tion drawaland soil erosion requires till or ridal gate tidal flushing is often some areasrestricted by control to support wetland reducedbv sandbars dikes vegetation

n,aveforce is problemon salt pondscreate hvper- exposedshores salinesoils which require leaching Animal pests posea malor problem, introducedinvertebrate: especiallvin areasnear Sphaeromaundercuts urbancenters; ground pickleweed marsh; need squirrelsand some birds erosionalcontroI while scem to be the maior cordgrassbecoming problem established Competition with more pickleweed is the best /aumeainvades rapidlv, potential for escaped oppbrnrnistic species naturalinvader. but cord- but is ultimately replaced exoticsto colonizeupland grassis often prefened bv pickleweed areasand islands;pdtential for marshenhancement for exotic speciesof cord- becauseit supports lighF grassto invadenative footed clapper rails; pickle- habitat weed reducessurvival. vegetativepropagation of cattails,tules, water hva- cordgrass cinth mav take over fresh- water marshes

Table 6: Factorslimiting the successof vqetalbn rtablbhmmt in Calipmia wctland rrtorations.

24n gB wt/m?lyr respectively (Harding and Butler 4. The density and biomass of animals are much Lg79). higher within and in the vicinitv of eelgrassbeds than 2. Natural systems may filter sewageeffluent. "ln at away from the beds h the same Seneralarrea and in Ieastone recorded instancein Ausralia the efficary of the same depths (Orrh 1977,7"haveret a|.7973)."We a Zostoa meadow to filter r.lw sewage was estab- know that there are manv reasonsfor the presenceof lished when the removal of the plants led to the animals in seagrassbeds: the environment is more poisoning of valuable benthos" (Phillips and McRoy stable, since seagrasseshold sediments, baffle cur- 1980,p.300). rents, Provide shade and concomitant temPerature 3. Coastal stabilization can h brought about bv eel- modification. Also, there is as much as 20 times more grass. Drastic changes in coastal topography were surface area for small sessileflora and fauna as com- observed in England and Denmark in the aftermath pared to unvegetated area. There are more hiding of the eelgrass"wasting diseas€"in the 1930's.Sandy places for prey and thus more prey for predators to beaches landward from eelgrassbeds were replaced eat" (Phillips and McRoy 79ffi, p.322). by cobble shores and bare muds (McRoy and Helf- 5. Ecological efficiencv (ratio of the production of feich79T7,pp.*n). consuneF to theamount that theyconsume)is high. 459

UgotionofVqetntinn 59

Vegetative Habitat Factors Growth Comments

Temperature Range 0-{0"C Probablynot a constraint, since native populations exist along the whole coastof the state. Optimum 10-2ff Salinitv Range Freshwater-.12o/oo Optimum 10-30o/oo Depth-Light Range l.E metersabove Light attenuation becauseof turbiditv is likely to raisethe lower limit considerablv. MLLW to Backmanand Barilotti(1976) showed that litht intensitvdetermined the densiv 30 meters deep and biomassof eelgrassat Agua Hedionda.Under ambient conditions, the lower limit was -2.5 to -3.0 (NILLW).In SanDiego Bav a transplantat -1.5 to -1.E m Optimum MLLW-6.6 m (MLLW) failed (Goforth and Peeling1980). below MLLW (11mat high tide) Substrate Range Pure firm sand Apparently a reducing environment for the roots and an oxidizing environment to pure soft mud for the leavesis necessary(phillips 197.1,pp. 255-25g).Onuf,s obsirvarions ar Mugu Lagoonsuggest that newlv depositedunconsolidated muds are unsuitable. Transplantsin coarsersediments pertbrmed better in San Diego Bay (Gotbrth and Peeling1980). pH 7.3-9.0 Water Motion Range Waves to lvtavlimit the developmentoi eelgrassbeds along the downwind sideof shallow stagnantwater embaymentswith t'rnetextured bottoms Optimum Little wave action. Gentle currents to 3.5 knots

Table 7: Entironmmtal characteristicsunder which eelgrassgrouts (adapted from Phillip 1974,p. 26il with comma*s aboutapplication to coastalwetland, restorations in Catihnia.

"Our comparafivelv high efficiencies suggest that tbrtunatelv, information on how to accomplish this obiec- this eelgrass bed is an efficient system that provides tive is inadequate. The published toleranceranges of eel- resident 6sh with superior shelter, food, and protec- grass for a varielv of presumablv irnportant environmen- tion. . . These fishes therefore would spend propor- tal factors provide a point of departure (Iable 7); however, tionatelv less of their assirnilatedenergy copii.rg *ith it is important to note that Zosteramaina almost cerainly envLonmental exEemes, searchingfor food, and es- is composed of different geograpNc stocks, with nar- caPing from predators, and hence may use a gteat rower ranges than indicated for the species(McRoy and ProPortion of consumed energ'y for growth and pro- Helfferich 1977, pp.13-20, Phillips and McRoy 190, pp. duction" (fhayer et al. 7975). 51-52). 6. At least for fishes, eelgrassis the most distinctive habitat of ourcoastal wetlands. The onlydearhabitat SeagrassRestoration sPecialists encounterd in 6ve years of sampling at Techniques for transplanting and anlruring sea- Mugu Lagoon are bav pipefish, Syngnathuspetorhyn- grasses are presented in Phillips and McRoy (1980)pp. chus, and shiner surfperch, Cymatogasteraggrrylatus. 'llegetative 41-55 and 57-68,respectively. seagrassrute- both only caught in eelgnss areas(OnuIand Quam- rial gives an instant seagrassmeadow when planted by men unpubl.). The eelgrassstation yielded by far the sods, but sods are diffiolt to ship over large disances in biggest catches and largest numkr of species,until the masses needed. Seeds are easy to tsansport in great the eelgrass was destroved by storm-causedsedi- masses, but the number of fruits and seeds produced per mentation in 1978. year is unpredictable and variable, seedgermination rates Where feasible, there aregood reasonsfor incorpor- can be low and unpredictable, many seedsappear to be ating eelgrass beds into futule restor.rtionprojecs. Un- Iost in the 6eld, and seedling survival appearsto be low." A60

70 ZeLlln,lresW€t Ont{

Planning the Nature of the Restoration

Map of existing topographv site vegetation mapped to indicate pocketsof desirablespecies soil properties;e.g. salinities,pH, healv metals,Pollutants soil strucrureas required by site location

Concepnral plan attempt to resolve the local and regional restorationgoals in coniunction with restrictions oi the site determination of desired vegetation habitat size, basedon wildlife need and vector control considerahons.(Lack of iniormation on a numberof importantresearch questions limits lhe recommendanons that can be made at this time, researchneeds are on Table 10) ecosvstemlevel management is preferredover single speciesmanagement plan shouldbuilt on exishngassets of the site

Developmentof engineeringsketches for establishingappropriate elevations, slopes, channels, and dike site plan breeches considerationof localsedimentation problems and provisionfor Protectionof newlv establishingplants from strongwave action

Undertaking Plant Establishment Following Site Preparation

Map oi Site soil salinities,other soil propertiesappropriate to the site,i.e. pH; heary metals, Pollutants)hydrologcal fearures(e'g. wave force),and elevation 30cm contours,if Possible Establishment an intermediatearea where on-sitepropagation of plantscan occur' This is neededfor test plantings largerestoration sites or whereverpropagules are limited in number. It should be located in the most favorable environment for rapid reproduction. Detailed descrip- elevationsdetermined for eachspecies by referenceto best information for the region tion of plantin8 timing specified:transplantation to ocorr during most t'avorabletime of year (following scneme rainiall but after tlooding) protechondevices provided againstherbivores and wave force watering,if necessarv tvPeoi materialsto be planted(seed, sprig, core) Monitoring details considered in Table 9 Program Plans for deposit findings in a central library informaton dissemination

Table 8: Rmmmaddprocdurc for theatablbhmmt of vqetation in auetland ratomtion plan. "Until methds are developed to initiate tlowering in 1980). Plugs of 410 cmr in fiber Pots were setout at inter- culture, with subsequentproduction of fruits and seeds,I vals of 0.6 m in rows that were 2 m aPart. The intertidal reconmend the plug" (planls with sediment intact placed transplant was successful;however, only the transplants -1.8 in hole in subsFate, 300 crnzx'1.5 cm deep) "as the single on hurnmocks survived subtidally (-1.5 to m MLLW) the site' most important method of transplantation for mass'scale with the red alga Gracilariadominating most oi use. . . It would not be difficult to transport plugs in presumably becauseof low light. plastic sleeves or to hold them in such sleeves for later transplantation. It would not take as rnany plugs to Restoration Plan and Project Monitoring 'patch' (Phillipsand lvtcRoy1980, in a site as would sods." Once the goals of the restoration have been ident' P.a). ified, the conditions of the site have beendetermined, and Literature on the feasibilitv of eelgrasstransPlanta- the constraints of materials and modifications are known' developed (Table tion has been evaluated (Booneand Hoeppel 1976);held a specific-Because implementation plan can be it is tests of techniques have been performed (Robilliard and 8). wetland restoration is still in its infancy, Porter 7976);and two maior transplantshave been carried important that each project be recognized as an exPeri- site outand monitored in San Diego Bay(Goforth and Peelhg ment and that the. plan include monitoring of the 461

Rn toration of Vqetntion 77

beiore and after implementation in order to assessthe successot the eiiort. This tvpe oi interactionbetween l. aerialphotos "adap- planningand evaluahonof resultshas been called immediatelv following construction; five management"bv Waltersand Hilbom (1978)oi the vearlv intervalsaiterwards done in Universitvof BritishColumbia, and interactionis essen- sPnng. tial to move marsh restoration from the experimental phase to the desired "state-oi-the-art". Specifics ior 2. establishmentof permanenttransts; planting schedulesand methodshave been de'veloped ior sampleat variouselevations and flow manv Atlanticand Gulf coastmarsh plants (Environmen- regunes. tal Laboratorv 1978).!{ost oi the iniormationavailable for a. soil survev at surfaceand 15cm West Coast species has been taken from plantings on depth; saiinitv, pH, particlesize, (as dredge spoils in San Francisco8.'ry (Nervcombe and Pride heaw metal/pollutants required bv site) 1975).Untortunatelv, long term studv oi theseplantings b. piant coveranalvses and species has not been conducted on a consistentbasis (Hanlev composition:every six months (late Smith pers.comm.). As a result,planting techniques ior surruner; earlv spring) unfil marsh West Coastspecies are oiten basedon unpublishedobser- establishmentis proceedingas vations of consultantsor scientists.Zedler (in prep.) and expected (in prep.) are developingguidebooks tor vegeta- Josselvn c. sedimentation/erosionstudies to tion establishmentior SouthemCalitbmia and San Fran- assesslong-term stabiliw of siteand cisco Bav, respectivelr',based on relativelvlong-term re- possiblecorrecfive management search. practices An important considerationin anv marshrestoration plan is knorvledgeoi both elevationsand soilcharacteris- J. planting program:initiate six months to fics at the site. Although rveoiten know the tolerancesof one vear iollowing consfruction the speciesdesired, the dir'erse methotls and terminol- activitv. a. est;blish test plots at variouseleva- ogies used to measure these en"'ironmentalparameters tions using natural plant volunteers lead to contusion among plannersand scientists.For ex- as indicationof planting sites ample, the tidal datum used as a reierencelevel differs growth plants using among civil engineers,scientists, and geologists.The Na- b. evaluate of expansionin diameterof clumps or tional Ceodetic VerticalDatum of (NCVD) hasbeen 1929 number of stems suggestedas the common reterencedatum for wetland scientists (H.T. Han'ev these proceedings).Likewise, c. developcomplete planting Program after initial results similar agreementis neededon methodologiesanti units to describe wetland soil characteristics(K. Cunio these d. comparisonwith unplantedsites proceedings). Future workshops should consider and undergoing narural colonization adopt a consistentset of measurementsto describeWest 9: Recomntendationsmonitoring the establishment Coast wetland environments. Table lor ol vegetationin wetlandratorations in Calipmia. Monitoring eitbrts must be suificient to determine what caused the successesor tailuresof projectcompo- sediments can reach equilibrium with the overlying wa- nents. "Failures" to achieveproiect objectivesmay then ter. This settling period can also be used to monitor natur- be mitigated bv improved knowledgeof how to succeed ally esablishing plants and to assesstheir sunrival and in furure attempts. Were problems causedbv site charac- growth. If planting is deemed necessary,several test plots teristics or planring techniques?Which characteristicsor should be established to develop recommendations for techniques were to blame? Setting up the project in an the complete planting Prognm. Of course, the monitor- experimental lramervork would help .to assess these ing program should be expanded at restorations involv- causes. Preliminarv small scaleexperirnents could reduce ing new site preparation techniques or in-areaswhere no irnplementation costs. For example, if soil salinitiesare previous restorations have been completed or in- very high, the plantings could be wateredin some loca- vestigated. tions and not in others. Improved establishmentwhere Costs tbr monitoring should be includedin the over- watered would indicate that drier, saltiersoils restricted all project and responsibilitv tbr evaluating the results of plant growth and that irrigation is necessarvon the site. monitoring should be clearlyidentified. There is definite- A minimal monitoring plan is proposed in Table 9. ly a role ior scienrists in the process. Evaluation of man- Aerial photos can be most us€ful in following the estab- agement experimentscould well be part of an ongoing lishment of vegetation and the spread of plantings. Aerial scientific studv of wetland functioning, although the photos can also be used to map developing channels and monitoring alone would not likely be fundable by a re- areas of sedimentation or erosion. Both black and white s€arch granting agency. Managers should seek the coop' and infrared photos should be taken. In most cases,plant- eration of researchersin all phases of the projects, from ing should be delayed from six to twelve months so that planning to final evaluation, to determine what asPects 462

72 Zall^sr,lmsWAOnuf

Table10: Rrscarclt n:connnqrlntio,tt torL'ard inryrori,tg tltc drsrgrrtr/ a'eflotl rrslorrrliorrsm Caiiionrta Determination of optimal habitat size and con- fieuration (e.g. pickleweed and cordgnss rvith existing research Habitat are compatible Proiects- *"".st l for wildiife utilization. Patchsize Fish and enhancementneeds of the U.5. Navv, U.S. necessarvto atfractand support native.animal Wildlife Serviceand the Unitied Port oi San Diego have oopularions;necessarv bufier zone width and been partiallv met through cooperationwith researchers h'de; sensin'ritvof variousanimai speciesto funded bv the Caliiomia SeaCrant Program(Zedler). diirurbance; d6siredlocation of developments The results of the monitoring must be reae{ilvavail- adiacentto wetlands;and rvpesof structures wetland animals. able to be useiul to future restorationProiects. A central and acfivitiestolerated bv these depositorv with funds to keep and disseminate Requirements of marsh vegetation for tidal reports is needed. lVe suggest that the nvo estuarine fluitring and preferred balance of fresh and salt sancruaries in Caliiornia, Elkhom Slough and Tiiuana water influence. For wetlands which must be Estuarv, be funded to establishthis service. closed to ddal int-luenceduring certain periods long can Quoting from lValtersand Hilbom (1978,p. 183): (e.e. t'loodingoi neabvsfreams), how absentand not jeopardizethe Wlrcnt,e can. . . Ieanrlo trcttt. . . the;tlole rt!.l,ltlstl,lctlf rralt cit*inti-on be marsh?For marsheswhere lreshwatert-looding processtts tallq exyerinwrtalrrcfit'itres requiritry fwtdanen can be regulated,or where wastewaterinPut can arrc/ thenil'e nnv I'egirrto tnl,(- activeplanthrg Trrdgrrrent, be addedl what is the maximum allowablefresh- about tt scienceof ecological,,tdrr.lsstttcttl. water input ior maintenanceof brackishorsaline marshes? for FutureResearch Suggestions tmpacts of nutrients on marshes and the use of Wheneverpossible, research should be undertaken ueited wastewater to qeate fresh/brackish to addressquestions bevond simple environmental mon- marsh areas.What are the desirablelevels of itoring (Table10). Resolving some of thesequestions rvill nufrients in coastalmarshes? How efiectiveare improve the lvildiife habitatscreated; ansh'ers to others marshesin removing nutrients from sewage are necessan'to Protectpublic healthanci meet staterva- eftluent? r.'illbe difiicult to set ter qualifv standards.Oi course.it Comparisons between natural rates of vegeta- precise standardson the functioningoi a rvetlandgiven tion iolonization with the establishmentof its inherent variabilitv and the degree oi compromise vegetation following artificial transplantation' needed to meet the demandsoi modem sociefv-In addi- How much t'asterdo-marshes establish with greatestneed oi tion. restorafionand enhancementefforts should not take 'rransplintationplanring?lVhich speciesare in the single-species-managementaPProach; instead r,r'e betauseof biologcal must manage for the entire ecosvstem.Inter-relation- limitationsT shipsamong rvetlandspecies are numerous. and altering Relationship between vegetationdensity and one speciesn'ill haveimPacts on manvothers. Research is mosquito vector control. What is the optimal our onlv tool to establishthese relationships and to de- densfryof vegetation(usable by wildlife suchas termine the oprimal designand managementprocedures rails) that can-still allow vector control, and how to protect rvildlite and provide the public h'ith tlxeen- can it be maintained? vironmental oualifv thev desire.

Panel Discussion

|ohn Oliver, Moss Landing U; Another important point is that all marsh restoration experi' M;l first comment is that the problems involving or development Proiects are relativelv large-scale marsh restoration are prirnarilv social and political and, ments. Rializing the experimental nature of these activ' therefore, economic. These issueslvere addressedin yes- ities will help in at least two wavs. First, we can take terdav's sessions. The biological and physical problems advantage oi the experimental settint to test relevant are not difficult to overcome, but are intriguing. ideas and further our understanding of wetland com- I also want to emphasize the often neglected realitv munities, either for relativelv applied or less applied that nature is variable. We have management schemes goals. Second,a clearunderstanding of the experimental mainlain and legal systems that are commonly invariant. Thus, iurutu of these aiti,rlties will help all parties to while nature and our understandingof nature vary, our an open mind about the entire Process. management and regulatory efforts are commonly inflex- I want to make a few comments about monitonng' ible and static. This is a cickv situation. I hope that realis' There is no distinct dichotomy between a monitoring tic and useful management programs can be founded on activilv and research,at least in most ecologicalmonitor- in a these simple realities. ing efiorts. Monitoring Prognms are generally used A63

Rn torationof VqetntiDrl 73 more applied researchactiviw. Verv little monitoring of We are .,'ervgood at that. So take that to min'1,as well as, biological phenomena is useh.rlior short-term surveill- perhaps,to he.rrt. ance or "bell ringing"..Bacteria counts around a waste outfall m.rv be the onlv exception,for betteror worse.lVe Fran Demgen, DemgenAquatic carv on remark.rblemonitoring programs that are ad- Biology, Vallejo, CA: vertised .rs regulatorv eiforts .rnd not research.Com- I rvant to make If vou look at monlv thev are actuallv concemed with large-scaleor one minor correcfion. the data vou might the wrong impressionthat tlnelvlt. long-term changes rvhich are very relevantapplied sci- get Vierv Sanitarv District enhancementwas createdto treat ence problems. But just as commonlv the relationship waste water. lt's purposeis wildliie habitatcrearion. between the monitoring activities and the applied re- The paper is verv good in providing an overview. I search problem has not been clearlv formulatedor even think that rvhat is missingare more specifict'acts, like the recognized.In iact, when one attemptsto matchrelevant one given that one sprig in three vearscould del'elopan questions to the monitoring activities,we often find that eight meter wide patch oi grass. I think that even the the quesfionalreadv has a goodanswer. that theacfivifv is betrveencomplete and an eight-meterpatch inappropriate to the questiono[ concem,or that the ques- range tailure in threevears is valuableto the peopletn'ing to do things. tion cannot be answered.I am convincedthat most of the And I think that this paperwould bea verv valuableplace surveillancemonitoring oi biologicalevents is uselessand have that the people desigrringand that a clear iocus on applied researchquestions is essen- to specific data so projects have to use as grridelines. tial to anv monitoring activitv. doing something Even if it's bad news, it's better than no news at ali. There is a need to provide site-specificinformation, so that H. Thomas Harvey, plannerscan interpolateand use the data in making their Sanlose State on'n conclusions.fvlanv peopte are arraid of trying to tell Unioersity, Sanlose, CA: other peopler,vhat thev've done, or applving theirconclu- I do t-eelthat rve need monitoring to tind out n'hat sions to other things,but I think this would be an im- we'd hoped ior has to some degree been successtul.I portantaddition. think that'sbeen a part thathasn't been either reported or It seemslike-and I didn't realizeit origrnally-the encouragedto the degreethat it should havebeen. But I major thrust here has been salt marshesand hopefully would like to get to some nitfv-grittiesand inasmuchas there rvill be more peoplethat will alsoallude to treshwa- there is a captive audience.t will get on mv soapbox that ter svstems,particularlv those using wastewater. It's very some of you have endured betore encouraging and hearteningtbr me that so manv other First, rve should start using NCVD ior the Land people have mentionedwaste water wetlands.As few as Elevation Datum-and how it relatesproperlv to tidal about slr vearsago, vou'd bring uP wastewater wetlands elevations,which areenhrelv something else. The current and people rvould look at vou askanceand wonder what useageo[ various tidal elevationsas reterenceior marsh on earth vou rvere talking about. The two things are not development has resulted in considerablecontusion incompafible and there are quite a few projectsin edst- among engineers,scientists, and agencvpeople. Second, ence nolv and othersare planned. I think I should mention that if there is anything that's One will be the big EastBay RegionalPark-East Bay lacking in the paper, it's somespecifics. Admittedlv, there DischargersProiect that will be adiacentto our field trip is lremendous varietv throughout Califomia. site tomorrow. It's approximately 162acres and will be a I tend to side with someof you who believethat if vou good opporruni& to gain new intbrmation, processesthat set up the physical conditionsyou should step back and happen in these waste water marshes. Another project get out of the wav. Nahrre in the long run is going to that should be happening this year is in Eureka, a 50-ace decide which vegetation wiil survive under the circumst- site. The Cir,v of Eureka will be restoring wetlands to the ances that are present. I realizewe can manipulate,to a Elk River, including a certain amount of marsh using certain degree,and we probably should, if we want cer- waste water. It will also include some that's returned to tain things. But I think one of the main ingredientsin tidal action and some freshwater areas. There are, in marsh restorationis patience.Those of us who have been addition, some seasonal ponds on that site making it a around awhile have had to leam that you can't plan it all. mulri-habitat site. If everybody closses their fingers in We have to just take what comessometimes. unison in this room, we mav be able to get somewater for I would close onlv bv suggesting that we recognize the New Chicago Marsh down in the South Bay. We are that humankind is probablv more of a rationalizingor- working on possibilities of getting close to ten million ganism than a rarional organism.We have our gut reac- gallons-a day of treated effluent from San Jose' which is tions, opinions, and desires.We, then, marshalall the idjacent to the San Francisco8ay Wildlife Refugeand the factsand evidencethat will support thosepoints of view. water needv New ChicagoMarsh. A64

74 Ar,uiimceP artbipation

abused in the managementsvstem. And so thereis this Audience Participation legrtimate resistanceto reallv making it a much more viableactiviW, until it canbe shown to do theiob. KATHERINE CUNEO (Madrone Associates):I The problem is we don't have the luxurv-in Calitbmia would like to make a suggestion.At the same time we oi leaving things aloneand preservingrvhat we have form the depositolv of information, we should have a iust got. Becauseoi what on in watersheds.rvetlands will committee to work on the standardization of measure- Soes disappearif thev are leit alone. We have to get in and be ments used in published papers.Considering salinity, heal'v-handed.t'm trving, anrl obviouslvothers oi us are. we find it is reported as molarity, as milliosmoles, as too, but t think there is enough salesresistance that it's osmolarity in tersrs of pressure bars, and atmospheric going to be a little while longer beiorewe are going to get pressure. We should have a method of transposing these some svstematicsvstem oi evaluation. to one standardized measure that planners could use. I suggestthat on this committeewe havea soils scientist,a VIRCINIA RATH (Stanford Universilv): We have plant physiologist, a wildlife biologist, a hydrologist, seen yesterday that there is often an absenceof clear and a planner. goals in what we are trying to accomplish by theseresto- DR. ZEDLER: Cood suggestion. rations. And it seemsthat often we move towards assum- that the maximum species diversity is what should WAYNE TYSON (Regrowth Associates): What re- ing be sought for in these restorations. search is available on the reproductive biology of marsh- Dr. Zedler mentioned that pickleweed is often a land plant species? competitor, even to the detriment of other DR. HARVEY: It's controversial and scattered. superior such as Spartina or other succulents. Often Some information is availablelrom the Armv Corps of species we have Salcornia marshes coming in even Engrneers. times, though we have planted Spartina as in the FaberTract RICHARD WARNER (FieldStudy Centerin Davis): in San FranciscoBay. fust a general commentto the panel at large and I mean Why all the push to plant Spartina hereon the west this in a kindly, if critical way. I would suggestthat we coast when Spartina is often just fringing vegetation have failed rather thoroughly in the second half of our and the bulk of the marshes contain Salcomiu. ls charge for this panel and that is to addressthe needsand this another example of trying to get East Coast technol- opportunities for monitoring. The use of monitoring as ogy and EastCoastdogma and plant iton the WestCoast? separate and dichotomous from researchin our Ameri- DR. HARVEY:The reasonI was plantingcordgrass at can frame of reference is looked on with some humor by FaberTract was to find out what the fidal elevationwas' I European scientists. They look at us in this context as a wasn't trying to emulate East Coast marshes' I didn't '69 '70. bunch of dilettantes jumping in and doing brilliant re- know about them in and AnzaPacific is plantedat search for a couple of years and then rushing off to do about two t-eetabove mean low or low lvater in an attemPt equally brilliant researchelsewhere with very little fol- to see what transPlant procedures, seeds, seedlings' low-through and exploitation of the cumulative empiri- dlvarf versusrobust lvould survive under that end oi the we cal data base from our studies. And rarely, if ever, ate range. using the continued fraure of referenceof a growing data pieces base to modify and even learn from our researchefforts. MS. RATH: Ifs obvious many experirnental How' Maybe the panel may have some comments about some' of inforrration could come from these plantings' persist in trying to plant Spartina thing that is genninating at the Presenttime, but I pre- ever, it seems that we sently seeno plan for the required institutionalization of marshes. this data base. DR. HARVEY: That's why I made the comment But DR. ZEDLER: The National ScienceFoundation has about patience sometimes as you-r best approach' sholld be planted h certain just begr.rn a long-term ecological research Program. cordgrass can and probably the lower We've been nagging at SeaGrant to do something similar place-swhere you wint to eitablish vegetationat thelongest for a number of vears. But I can't sav that anything is elevationalrange rapidly' FaberTractis one of that 95 acres' germinating vet. A lot of seedshave been sewn. duration. Co.dgasi hai spread throughout DR. ONUF: I wrote a proposalto SeaGrant thatwas although it's predominantly pickleweed, I agree' p[. Califomia, the reason essentially aimed at this area vou have Pointed out. May' JOS3EI-YN:In Southem is the habitat be the institutions aren't ready for it yet, or the way I there'sbeen emphasis on cordgrassis thatit habitat that wrote it didn't get it acrossproperlv, but I met with a for the light'footed clapper rail and also the develop' resounding lack of interest. has been"destroyedmolt frequentlv through I think restoration is often regarded as a s€ll out to ment activitv. pickleweed development. There are exarnples of failed restoration ln San Francisco Bay, I agree that the Pickleweed projects, where the uade-offs that were made can be marshes do represent the pristine condition' shown, after the fact to have not been in dre best interest is a great volunteer, it comes in verv npidlv' Cordgrass' often of the nafural systems concemed. There is, I think, a how-ever, is verv slow to colonize and some activitv legitimate concem that restoration, as a mitigation, can be is reguired in order to establish it- GI

GLOSSARY

- Compensation fuIl replacement of project-induced. losses to fish and wildlife resources (fws Mitlgalion policy)

Ecosystem - all of the biotic elements (i.e., species, populations, and communities) and abiotic elements (i.e.l land, ii_i., watei, energy) interacting in a given geographical area so that a flow of energy leads to a clearlv deiin;d Lrophic structure, biotic diversity, and materiat cyctes. (From E.p. odum. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Adopted by FWS) - Enhancement the restoration or rnod,ification of part of an ecosystem that results in a net gain in resoulce value.

Evaluation species - those fish and, wildlife resources in the planning area that are selected for impact analysis- rfrey must, currently !e present or known to occur in the planning aria during.at least one stage of their rife histor| (for exceptions, see FWSMitigation Policy). Evaluation-species-economic are selected because (1) they have high puUfic interest, varuer or both; or (2) they provid.e I broader ecological perspective of an area. spelies shourd, be serected. to represent social' economic and broad ecological views because mitigation planning efforts incorporate obje"iit.= that have social, economic, and ecological ispects. Fws Mitijitio" PoIicy) ifrorn

Fish and wildrife resources - birds, fj.shes, mammals, and, all other classes of wild animars and all types oi aguatic and 1and, vegetation upon which wirdlife is-l,epenaen€. (From FWS Mitigation poticy) - Habitat the area tfrat provid,es d,irect support for a given species, population, or conmunity, inciiraing gr]ality,-suppfy water quality, vegetation and soil chalacteristic! and"ir w'ater (Fron rws Mitigation policy)

Habitat value - the suitabirity of an area to support a given evaluation species (FWSttiligation policy)

In-kind_replacement.- providing or rnanaging substitute resources to replace the habitat value of the reiouices lost, where such substitute resources are physically and biologically the same or closery approximate those lost. (rws Mitigition Foricy)

Loss a change in fish and wildlife resources due to hunan activities that is considered ad,verse and: (l) red,uces the biologicar value of that habitat, for evaluaii6n species, (2) Glossary - G,2

reduces.popuration numbers of evarualion speciest-(4) (3) increases population numbers of rfnuisancerr species i reduces the human use of those fish and wildlife resources; or (5) disrupts ecosystem structure and function. (Fws Mitigation rolily; Mininize - to reduce to the smallest, practicable amount or degree (FwS Mitigation policy) - Mitigation ".(?) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an actiont ib) rninirnizing impa6ts- fy liniting the degree or magnitude of thd ict,ion and i.ts implementation; (c) rectiiying the irnpact by repairing, rehabilitatingr 9r restoring itre affelted eivir6nrnent;' (d) reducing or eliminating the irnpact over time by preservition and maintenance operations during the life ot tfr! actj.on; an4 (e) compensating for the irnpact by repraci-ng or providing substitute resources or environnents.i (Nat,Lonal Environfrental Policy Act)

Mitigation banking - habitat protecti.on or improvement actions taken expressly for the purpose of compenlating for unavoidable losses from specific future-d,evelopmenl actionS. (Fws Mitigation policy) off-site - occurring ?t a point distant frorn the project site but within the specific systern or area involved,. ja=i:" 19g2) on-site - occurring on, adjacent to or in the imrned.iate proxinity of the development site. (Ashe 1982) out-of-kind replacement - provid.ing or managing substitute resources- to replace the habitat value of ihe resources lost, where such substitute resources are.physically or biologi;;iiy- ) different from those lost. (Fws uitilation eoiicy) - Replacement the substitution or offsetting of resource losses with resources considered to be of equiialent biologi-al *rilu.. However, resources used for replacenent represent ross or nodification of another tlpe ol naUitat vaiue. rt shoul6 be clearly understood that replacenent actions never restore the lost fish and wildlife resource--that is lost forever.. (Fron Fws Mitigation policy)

Restoration - the rehabilitat,ion and, return of part of an ecosystem, fornerly altered or removed from prod.uct,ion, back to effecti-ve productivity. (adapted frorn garnhart and Boyd 1984)