1

Draft copy: 12 Mar 09

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Our Living Oceans:Habitat STATUS OF THE HABITAT OF

U.S. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

Policymakers’ Summary, 1st Edition

1

Our Living Oceans: Habitat

This publication may be cited as follows:

NMFS. 2009. Our living oceans: Habitat. Status of the habitat of U.S. living marine resources.

Policymakers’ summary, 1st edition (rev. Oct. 2009). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-F/SPO-83, 32 p.

An online version of this publication is available at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/TM83.pdf.

Certain photographs in this publication are under the copyright protection of the photographers and/or

their employers. These are marked with the copyright symbol ©. Only photographs credited to an

agency of the U.S. Government are in the public domain.

Front cover photographs: top left, table coral and bluestripe snapper, French Frigate Shoals, NWHI, Jean

Kenyon, NMFS; top right, Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, P. R. Hoar, NESDIS; bottom,

harbor seals in Puget Sound, © OceansArt.us.

Rear cover: top to bottom, left to right: conch in Florida seagrass bed, Heather Dine, Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary; North Carolina coast, NOAA; Port of Seattle, NOS, NOAA; Southeast Alaska

wetland and estuary, Mandy Lindeberg, NMFS; right whale, NOAA; green sea turtle, Hawaii, © Ursula

Keuper-Bennett & Peter Bennett; mangrove roots and fish, Elliott Key, Florida, © Jiangang Luo,

University of Miami; Pacific intertidal zone, Nancy Sefton, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary;

squarespot rockfish, Pacific Coast, Mary Yoklavich & Waldo Wakefield, NMFS.

Opposite page: fish and mangrove roots, Elliott Key, Florida, © Jiangang Luo, University of Miami.

Printed with soy-based

ink on recycled paper.

Status of the Habitat of U.S. Living Marine Resources

May 2009 (revised October 2009)

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-83

U.S. Department

of Commerce

Gary LockeSecretary of Commerce

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Jane LubchencoUnder Secretary of Commercefor Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine

Fisheries Service

James W. BalsigerActing Assistant Administratorfor Fisheries

© J

ian

gan

g L

uo

, Un

iver

sity

of

Mia

mi

Policymakers’ Summary, 1st Edition

Our Living Oceans: Habitat

FOREWORD

Our Living Oceans: Habitat. Status of the Habi-tat of U.S. Living Marine Resources joins editionson living marine resources and economics as thethird and final part of the Our Living Oceans pub-lication series. Taken together, the volumes in thisseries serve as a report card on the state of U.S.living marine resources, their economic contri-butions to the Nation, and the condition of theirhabitats and availability of habitat use informa-tion. This Policymakers’ Summary, an abridgedversion, and the complete Our Living Oceans:Habitat report provide the foundation for moretargeted research and comprehensive and detailedreports in the future.

The most important laws governing activitiesof the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)pertinent to habitat are the Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and Management Act(MSFCMA), recently reauthorized in 2006, andtwo laws on protected species, the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protec-tion Act (MMPA). The MSFCMA includes pro-visions to help manage and protect Essential FishHabitat (EFH) which is defined as “. . . those wa-ters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding, or growth to maturity” for commerciallyand recreationally harvested fish and invertebrateswithin the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ,typically 3–200 nautical miles from shore). TheESA as it applies to NMFS includes provisions tohelp conserve ecosystems and habitats required by

those marine species threatened with, or in dan-ger of, extinction (e.g. listed fish, invertebrates,sea turtles, marine mammals, and marine plants).The MMPA places restrictions on any habitat al-teration that could adversely impact a marinemammal by disrupting behavioral patterns. Thisreport covers the habitats of all species managedor protected by NMFS under the MSFCMA, ESA,and MMPA.

That this report is the first comprehensivenationwide review of the status and trends of thesehabitats, as well as the first comprehensive sum-mary of information available on habitat use atthe fishery management or species-group level, un-derscores the difficulty of the task. In addition tocataloging what is known about our Nation’saquatic habitats and the patterns of their use byliving marine resources, the report also indicateswhat remains unknown. This will help to guideand prioritize research to address the most impor-tant gaps in knowledge. Recent technological ad-vances in autonomous underwater vehicles,multibeam sonar, and satellites have increased ourability to fill in these gaps in habitat knowledge.

Our living marine resources are in variousstates of condition, ranging from heavily overfishedor endangered through very healthy and function-ing at a high level of productivity. Although thehabitat needs of aquatic species often compete withother societal needs, NOAA must ensure that the

iv

quantity and quality of available habitat is suffi-cient to support each life history stage of everymanaged species at sustainable levels. There re-mains considerable scientific uncertainty in quan-tifying the habitat needs of many species, but thereis substantial evidence that habitat degradation orloss may be constraining some populations.

This report should not be interpreted as oneof despair nor of unbounded optimism. Federaland state governments have provided considerableprotection by regulating pollution and develop-ment activities, and the increasing availability ofhabitat information is contributing to improvedfishery and ecosystem-based management. How-ever, the ever-increasing concentration of humansalong the coasts, growing runoff from cities andagriculture, and changing climate continue to placepressure on aquatic habitats. The information pro-vided in this report will give readers a chance toassess the current situation facing aquatic habitatsand to consider the opportunities that we havetoday to protect the habitat that remains and re-pair or restore habitats that have been degraded orlost.

Many scientists throughout the National Ma-rine Fisheries Service and many other organiza-tions contributed to this report. As in any com-plex undertaking being pursued for the first time,the process was arduous and time-consuming. Iextend my appreciation and compliments to all.

v

James W. Balsiger, Ph.D.Acting Assistant Administrator for FisheriesNational Marine Fisheries ServiceSilver Spring, MarylandMay 2009

PREFACE

This Policymakers’ Summary is an abridged ver-sion of the inaugural edition of Our Living Oceans:Habitat. Status of the Habitat of U.S. Living Ma-rine Resources. The full report serves as a compan-ion report to the two other reports in the Our Liv-ing Oceans series: Our Living Oceans. The EconomicStatus of U.S. Fisheries and Our Living Oceans.Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources.By presenting an initial assessment of the statusand health of marine and coastal habitats impor-tant to living marine resources, the current edi-tion completes the picture of marine resource sta-tus begun in the other two reports.

Our Living Oceans: Habitat. Status of the Habi-tat of U.S. Living Marine Resources represents thefirst comprehensive national summary of habitatinformation and will serve as a baseline on habitatknowledge and status for future comparisons. In-cluded are the habitats of commercially andrecreationally harvested fishes and invertebrates,as well as marine mammals, sea turtles, and otherprotected marine species.

The full report consists of three sections: anIntroduction, a National Summary, and the Re-gional Summaries. The Introduction details theimportance of habitat, the legislation under whichFederal work is conducted, and the current statusof habitat research. The National Summary pro-vides an overview of the status and trends of habi-tats under the jurisdiction of the National MarineFisheries Service, and covers items common to allregions. The Regional Summaries include moredetailed information about habitat in each region.

This summary of the report presents key in-formation in a concise form. The initial sectionsprovide the highlights of the full report’s Intro-duction and National Summary. Instead of re-gional summaries, the rest of this version consistsof overviews of seven major issues affecting thehabitats of living resources entrusted to the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service’s protection. Foreach of these issues, information is provided onthe impacts to habitat, impacts to living marineresources, and solutions.

vi

CONTENTS

ivvi1579

1013141618202224262830

ForewordPrefaceExecutive SummaryIntroductionScope and Habitat UseHabitat Status and TrendsInformation Quality and Research NeedsIssues Affecting Habitat

Issue: Pollution and Water QualityIssue: Alteration and Degradation of Rivers and Migratory PathwaysIssue: Fragmentation and Loss of Estuarine and Shallow Marine HabitatIssue: Fishing Effects on HabitatIssue: Climate Variability and ChangeIssue: Invasive Species and Marine DebrisIssue: Vessel Traffic and Noise

ConclusionsReferences Cited and Additional Information

vii

1

In 2006, commercial and recreational fisher-ies supported over 2 million jobs and contributedover $73 billion to the United States gross nationalproduct, making our Nation one of the largest sea-food-producing countries in the world. However,habitat loss and degradation, including poor wa-ter quality; overfishing; and natural environmen-tal changes have put increasing pressure on ourliving marine resources, including coastal, oceanic,and anadromous (species that spawn in fresh wa-ter but grow to maturity in salt water, such assalmon) resources, threatening the sustainabilityof the Nation’s fisheries and protected resources.Ending overfishing in 2010–11, as stipulated inthe Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act(MSRA), will end one threat to fisheries resources.Nonetheless, much needs to be done to ensure thesustainability of the habitats upon which these liv-ing resources depend.

The MSRA mandates that the National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) desig-nate Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and minimizethe effects of fishing and non-fishing activities onEFH. The Act defines EFH as “. . . those watersand substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breed-ing, feeding, or growth to maturity.” In recentyears, momentum has been building for a shift infisheries management towards more holistic eco-system approaches. This includes a broader focuson ecological relationships and processes, and oninteractions with humans. Habitat is a key com-ponent of an ecosystem approach to management.

The Our Living Oceans: Habitat report pro-vides the first national summary of the status andtrends of the habitats used by the living marineresources under NMFS purview. The report cov-ers the habitats occupied by fishery stocks and

Mangrove roots provide vi-tal habitat for many species,especially young fish.

© J

ian

gan

g L

uo

, Un

iver

isty

of

Mia

mi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

protected marine mammals and sea turtles, rang-ing from inland streams where anadromous spe-cies spawn, to the marine waters of the U.S. Ex-clusive Economic Zone (EEZ) bounded by the 200nautical mile (n.mi.; 370 km) limit and beyond.Nearly all of these animals use shallow marine andoceanic habitats at some stage of their life cycle.Many also use estuarine habitats, including manycommercially valuable species. In keeping withNMFS’s marine focus, fewer species use freshwa-ter habitats, the major exception being anadro-mous species, such as salmon.

The overall message is mixed. Clearly theUnited States still possesses considerable function-ing habitat that supports populations of protectedspecies as well as substantial harvests of fisheryresources. However, it is also clear that there hasbeen substantial loss and degradation of habitat,especially where human activities occur. The cu-mulative impacts of these losses cannot readily bequantified, but they are undoubtedly considerable,especially in urbanized watersheds, estuaries, andcoastal areas.

Although the issues affecting U.S. living ma-rine resource habitats vary throughout the coun-try, many are widespread, even if the impacts ofsome may be manifested differently in differentregions. Certain issues are important in all aquatichabitats, while others have more specific and lim-ited impacts within a certain habitat type. Thequantity and quality of the water in many fresh-water habitats have been declining for over a cen-tury. Changes in land use, industrialization, resi-dential expansion, point and non-point sourcepollution, and dams and other flood-control struc-tures are major contributing causes. Estuarinehabitat has been dramatically impacted by manyof the same factors. Nutrient pollution and theresulting eutrophication, and the continued lossof estuarine and coastal wetlands and submergedaquatic vegetation are of particular concern. Shal-low marine and oceanic habitats generally havegood water quality, and relatively little habitat hasbeen lost to human activities. Nevertheless, thereare localized problems and concerns, such as theGulf of Mexico “dead zone” where the water un-

derlying the Mississippi River plume contains littleor no oxygen during the summer; the uncertaineffects of long-term climate change; and the im-pacts of some fishing gear, particularly bottomtrawls, on seafloor habitats.

As the U.S. population continues to grow,there is increasing pressure on the environment toprovide humans with food, income, recreation,and other resources. This is especially evident incoastal areas, where human population growth isabout five times faster than the rate inland. Use ofaquatic habitats will of course affect those habi-tats, and society faces many choices, including howto responsibly manage growth, development, andresource use. To do this wisely, society and deci-sionmakers must understand the consequences oftheir decisions, including the potential for habitatimpacts. In situations where habitat impacts can-not be avoided, decisionmakers must considerways to reduce or mitigate impacts and to restoredamaged habitats.

Scientific information is key to effectivelymanaging habitat. Understanding the relationshipsbetween species and habitats, knowing where andhow much habitat exists, and rigorously monitor-ing and assessing its condition can provide the sci-entific basis for managing habitat. However, thisinformation is only effective in informing publicpolicy when it is communicated to resource man-agers, stakeholders, and the public in a timelymanner and in forms that are appropriate to thespecific audiences.

For our Nation to continue benefitting fromabundant living marine resources, society mustplace a high priority on managing habitat. Hu-man populations and economic activities will con-tinue to expand, placing ever-increasing demandson the environment and the habitats it contains.Gaps in the relevant scientific information mustbe filled, and the information communicated, sothat decisionmakers can be appropriately informedas policy is developed and implemented. The Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service has developed theOur Living Oceans series of reports to contributeto these vital processes.

Above: Salt marsh, an im-portant habitat for fish spe-cies.

Opposite page: Kelp forest,providing habitat for manyspecies.

© O

cean

sArt

.us

3

INTRODUCTION

SCOPE AND HABITAT USE

HABITAT STATUS AND TRENDS

INFORMATION QUALITY AND RESEARCH NEEDS

ISSUES AFFECTING HABITAT

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

4

NO

AA

Co

rdel

l Ban

k N

atio

nal

Mar

ine

San

ctu

ary

Top: Yellowtail rockfish swim near heavily encrusted rockpinnacles in Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary offCalifornia.

Middle: Coral at Ailuk Atoll, in the Marshall Islands.

Bottom: A small Dungeness crab in eelgrass at the PadillaBay National Estuarine Research Reserve off Washington.

NO

AA

DO

I Off

ice

of

Insu

lar

Aff

airs

Many of our Nation’sliving marine resourcesdepend on living habitats

5

INTRODUCTION

In 2006, commercial and recreational fisher-ies supported over 2 million jobs and contributedover $73 billion to the United States gross nationalproduct, making our Nation one of the largestseafood-producing countries in the world. Untilquite recently, most people considered marine fish-ery resources to be abundant and inexhaustible.Overfishing and natural environmental changes,and habitat loss and degradation, including poorwater quality, have put increasing pressures oncoastal, anadromous, and oceanic resources. River,lake, estuary, coast, and deep ocean habitats pro-vide essential services such as food, shelter, andspace for reproduction and growth for many spe-cies, including fish, shellfish, crustaceans, birds,marine mammals, and sea turtles. Habitat dam-age and loss threatens the sustainability of theNation’s fisheries and protected resources. It alsomakes coastal areas much more vulnerable to hur-ricanes and coastal storms.

This abridged report provides an overview ofthe first national summary of the status and trendsof the habitats used by the living marine resourcesunder the purview of NOAA’s National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS)1. The report is part ofthe Our Living Oceans (OLO) series, joining OLOLiving Marine Resources and OLO Economics. Forthe first time, there are comprehensive publishedreviews of the Nation’s living marine resources, thehabitats they use, and the economic vitality andvalue of the industries that depend on them. Ap-propriate information also is included in the fullOLO Habitat report on nearshore species man-aged by the states or regional state fisheries com-missions.

The habitats addressed range from inlandstreams used for spawning by anadromous species(species that spawn in fresh water, but grow tomaturity in salt water, such as salmon) to the en-tire U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)bounded by the 200 n.mi. (370 km) limit, andbeyond. This report provides a conceptual frame-work and a baseline for future updates on habitat,

identifies the shortcomings in relevant informa-tion, and describes how these shortcomings canbe addressed through additional research.

Importance of Habitat

Habitat can be defined as the places where or-ganisms live, including areas used in every life stageand activity. For fish, habitat supports spawning,feeding, growth, and shelter from predators.Clearly habitat is essential for maintaining healthystocks of living marine resources.

Habitat is structured by both biotic (living)and abiotic (non-living) elements. Geological fea-tures are key abiotic elements. Examples includeintertidal rocks, subtidal or deep-sea sediment, andseamounts that rise steeply from the abyssal plain.Water itself is a critical abiotic component of habi-tat. Attributes of sea water, such as salinity (deter-mined by the mixing of fresh and sea waters), playa major role in defining the habitat of estuarinespecies. Farther offshore, ocean frontal zones, wheredistinct bodies of water meet, provide food-richhabitat for large pelagic predators, such as tunas.The biotic components of habitat consist of livingor dead organisms. Some biotic components are ofplant origin, such as the grasses that grow in saltmarshes, submerged aquatic vegetation (e.g. eel-grass), and kelp beds. Others are of animal origin,such as oyster bars and coral reefs. Some marinespecies can opportunistically occupy man-madehabitats, including oil rigs, pier pilings, and bridges,which attract encrusting invertebrates and fish.

Ecosystem Approaches to Management

In recent years, momentum has been build-ing for a shift in fisheries management away fromthe traditional single-species approach and towardsecosystem approaches (NRC, 1999). In its basicform, the single-species approach relies on an as-sumption that abundance of a target stock is af-fected only by factors such as the abundance of itsspawning adults, natural mortality and mortalitycaused by fishing, and the recruitment of juve-niles to its population. This enables a mathemati-cal modelling approach to stock assessment. Be-cause other factors are not considered, there is an

Jim

Ray

mo

nt,

Flo

rid

a K

eys

NM

S

1See http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/TM75.pdf for the full report.

Yellowtail snapper, a shal-low-water reef fish includedin the Fishery ManagementPlan (FMP) for the SouthAtlantic Snapper-GrouperFishery, the FMP for ReefFish Resources of the Gulf ofMexico, and the FMP for theShallow-water Reef FishFishery of Puerto Rico andthe U.S. Virgin Islands, isshown here in the FloridaKeys National Marine Sanc-tuary.

6

implicit assumption that the stock exists in isola-tion from the ecosystem in which it resides.

Ecosystem approaches to management are stillevolving, but generally embody a more holisticphilosophy. They include a broader focus on eco-logical relationships and processes, and interactionswith humans. They also include a broader consid-eration of management tradeoffs by placing themanagement of natural resources, such as fishstocks and their habitats, into a broader contextof societal priorities, such as ecosystem services(e.g. improved water quality), scenery, employ-ment, and economic activity.

Operationally, implementation of ecosystemapproaches to management requires that the es-sential ecosystem components and processes beconserved. Habitat, as a functioning element ofecosystems, is clearly a major consideration in thisnew and evolving philosophy of management.

NMFS Responsibilities for Habitat

Several Federal agencies and state and localgovernments participate in decisions involvingconservation and protection of aquatic habitats.The major Federal agencies outside of NOAA in-clude the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the En-vironmental Protection Agency, the Departmentof Agriculture, the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, and the Department of the Interior.Notable U.S. habitat protection legislation in-cludes the Clean Water Act, which aims to pre-vent destruction of aquatic ecosystems; the Na-tional Environmental Policy Act, which requires

Federal agencies to analyze the potential effects ofany proposed Federal action that would signifi-cantly affect the environment; and the FederalPower Act, which provides authority to NMFS torecommend hydropower license conditions.

The most important laws governing many ofthe activities of NMFS pertinent to habitat arethe Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act (MSFCMA) and two laws onprotected species: the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA).

The MSFCMA, which was originally enactedas the Fishery Conservation and Management Actin 1976, amended through the Sustainable Fish-eries Act in 1996, and most recently reauthorizedin 2007, is the primary legislation governing ma-rine fisheries. The original act established eightregional Fishery Management Councils to man-age fisheries in the EEZ under Fishery Manage-ment Plans (FMPs). Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)provisions were added with the Sustainable Fish-eries Act in 1996. The recent reauthorizationthrough the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthori-zation Act (MSRA), which was signed into law inJanuary 2007, did not include any changes affect-ing EFH regulations or guidance. However, it au-thorized the Community-based Restoration Pro-gram for Fishery and Coastal Habitats, establishedthe Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Pro-gram, and directed FMPs to designate zones toprotect deep-sea corals from damage or loss dueto fishery gear interactions.

To implement the EFH provisions, NMFS andthe Councils are required to undertake the fol-lowing three activities:

Designate EFH—describe and identify EFH foreach life stage of the species included in theirFMPs.

Minimize to the extent practicable the adverseeffects of fishing on EFH—Fishing impacts toEFH must be assessed and minimized to the ex-tent practicable, taking into special considerationHabitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC),

The definition of Essential Fish Habitat stresses the impor-

tance of having ample, healthy habitat available, especially

when different habitats are required for each stage of life:

“. . . those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawn-

ing, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” [Magnuson-

Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1802(10)].

7

which are habitats that are especially sensitive. Thismay lead to fishing gear restrictions and time/areaclosures.

Consult on potential impacts to EFH—Com-ments must be provided on activities proposed byFederal action agencies (e.g. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers) that may adversely impact areas desig-nated as EFH.

The ESA and the MMPA define the protectedspecies mandates of NMFS. Under the ESA,NMFS is responsible for protecting marine spe-cies that are threatened with, or in danger of, ex-tinction. Fish, invertebrates, sea turtles (when inthe marine environment), most marine mammals(cetaceans [whales, dolphins, and porpoises] andpinnipeds [seals and sea lions]), and marine plantsare included. Critical habitat that contains physi-cal or biological features essential for conservationmust be identified for every species listed underthe ESA, and NMFS issues Biological Opinions

for Federal actions that may impact the criticalhabitat of listed species. Under the MMPA, NMFSis responsible for protecting all species of cetaceansand pinnipeds, regardless of their status under theESA. When human-related impacts are identifiedthat may cause declines or impede recovery ofmarine mammal stocks, NMFS is responsible fordeveloping and implementing measures to allevi-ate these impacts on rookeries, mating grounds,feeding grounds, migratory routes, or other eco-logically significant areas.

SCOPE AND HABITAT USE

For this report, the United States was dividedinto five regions: Northeast, Southeast, PacificCoast, Alaska, and Pacific Islands (Figure 1). Todevelop the data for the report, habitat specialistsreviewed available data for each of the Federallymanaged or protected species in their region andclassified them as to how frequently each speciesuses four types of habitat: freshwater, estuarine,

Alaska Region

Southeast Region

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

Northeast Region

Pacific Coast Region

Pacific Island RegionMidway Island

Hawaii

Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef

Jarvis Island

Howland and Baker Islands

Johnston Island

American Samoa

Wake Island

Northern Mariana Islands

Guam

Figure 1

Living marine resources inthe Exclusive EconomicZone (EEZ) of the UnitedStates are managed byNMFS. The EEZ is dividedinto five regions in this re-port.

8

shallow marine (<200 m [<656 ft] depths), andoceanic (>200 m depths). The specialists also de-termined the relative quality of the available in-formation for each of the Fishery ManagementPlans (FMPs) or species groups,1 using the infor-mation levels for EFH, as defined in theMSFCMA. These levels are: Level 1 (distribution),Level 2 (habitat-related density), Level 3 (habitat-related growth, reproduction, and/or survival bylife stage), and Level 4 (habitat-specific produc-tion). This report also uses an additional level ofinformation quality, Level 0 (complete lack of sci-entifically credible data on habitat use). Althoughnot mandated in the ESA or MMPA, these samelevels were used to evaluate the quality of avail-able information for protected species. The meth-ods are described in greater detail in the completeOLO Habitat report.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of each region’sFMPs and species groups that use each of the fourhabitat categories (FMPs can cover a single spe-cies or multiple species). Shallow marine habitatsare used by over 95% of Federally managed fish-ery species in all regions, followed by oceanic habi-tats, which are used by over 75% of Federallymanaged fishery species and species groups. Allregions also exhibit a high degree of estuarine us-age, with the exception of the Pacific Islands, whichhave relatively little estuarine habitat. There arerelatively few FMPs (and none in the Pacific Is-lands) that include any species, such as anadro-mous salmon, that use freshwater areas.

Figure 3 shows the percentages by region ofhabitat usage by three distinct groups: cetaceans(whales, dolphins, and porpoises), pinnipeds (sealions and seals), and sea turtles. As the figure shows,these animals use shallow marine and oceanic habi-tats in every region. The three groups also use es-tuarine habitats to some degree in every regionexcept the Pacific Islands Region, which has rela-tively little estuarine habitat. Fresh water is thehabitat least used by the Nation’s cetaceans, pin-nipeds, and sea turtles, as only pinnipeds in theFigure 3

Percentage of protectedspecies groups (cetaceans,pinnipeds, and sea turtles)that use each habitat typeby each region.

Perc

ent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Northeast Southeast Pacific Coast Alaska Pacific Island

Region

F E S O F E S O F E S O F E S O F E S O

F = Freshwater E = Estuarine S = Shallow marine O = Oceanic

Figure 2

Percentage of FMPs andspecies groups that useeach habitat type by region.

0

20

40

60

80

100

P

erce

nt

Northeast Southeast Pacific Coast Alaska Pacific Island

Region

F E S O F E S O F E S O F E S O F E S O

F = Freshwater E = Estuarine S = Shallow marine O = Oceanic

1For this analysis, four FMPs in the Southeast Region thatcover many species with different habitat associations weredivided into a total of 18 species groups. See the completeOLO Habitat report for a detailed discussion.

9

Pacific Coast and Alaska Regions, and one ceta-cean (the beluga whale), occasionally use Alaskanfreshwater habitats.

HABITAT STATUS AND TRENDS

Geospatial data on the amount and conditionof the habitats used by the species managed byNMFS are collected and held by many differentorganizations, and for many different purposes.Scientific standards and classification systems varywidely. Hence, a quantitative analysis is simply notfeasible. However, it is clear that habitat impactsoccur where human activities alter the environ-ment. Consequently, habitats in proximity to highhuman population densities tend to be subjectedto the highest degree of stress. The general trendis that habitat loss and degradation are highest infreshwater and estuarine habitats, where the im-pacts of development and pollution are most di-rect, and lowest in shallow marine and oceanichabitats, where fewer human activities occur.

The quantity and quality of the water in manyfreshwater habitats have been declining for over acentury. Farming, industrialization, residential ex-pansion, and flood control have reduced the flowof fresh water, changed the timing and severity offlood events, and increased the quantity of nutri-ents and contaminants draining from upland habi-tats (Heinz Center, 2002). For example, in theColumbia River basin more than half of thestreams historically used by salmon are no longeraccessible due to construction of large dams(PSMFC, 2006). In the last 10 years, efforts havebeen made to restore access, but many areas, suchas those above Grand Coulee Dam, remain inac-cessible to Pacific salmon. Diversion of fresh wa-ter can significantly modify reproductive patternsand success for anadromous fish such as salmon.Reduced freshwater inflow and flushing in the baysand estuaries that are downstream results inchanges to salinity distributions, which greatly af-fect the habitats of estuarine species.

Estuarine habitat also has been dramaticallyimpacted by human activities. For example, withinPuget Sound and California, more than 70% ofestuarine wetlands have been lost due to factors

such as pollution, diking, and filling (Emmett etal., 2000), though much of that occurred long ago,and efforts are underway to protect and restorethese habitats in many areas. The loss of submergedvegetation continues in many estuaries, often dueto an excess of suspended sediment associated withpoor land-use practices, as well as algal bloomsstimulated by excess nutrients, which block lightpenetration. Beds of submerged aquatic vegeta-tion are almost completely absent from DelawareBay and nearby coastal bays (Bricker et al., 2007).Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation hasshown a rebound from extremely low levels in1984 due to some improvements in water quality.Although the Bay’s underwater grasses covered al-most 26,300 hectares (65,000 acres) in 2007,nearly double the 1984 levels, this is still only 35%of the way towards the 2010 restoration goal of75,000 hectares (185,000 acres) (Chesapeake BayProgram, 2008).

The continued loss of wetland habitats incoastal areas is a particular concern. These wet-lands comprise about one-third of all the wetlandsin the continental United States, and are impor-tant to diadromous fish and to maintaining theoverall health of the estuaries. Coastal wetlands,particularly coastal freshwater wetlands, continueto be lost at a disproportionately high rate, com-pared to inland wetlands. Estimates for 1998 to2004 show that coastal wetlands continue to belost at a rate of tens of thousands of acres per year

1:20,000

0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000625Meters

Legend

Da te High Tide Acre s295306289278267

Octobe r 2002Octobe r 2003Octobe r 2004Se pte m be r 2005Octobe r 2006Se pte m be r 2008 188

LATX

MS

Accretion (land growth): approximately 57 acresErosion (land loss): approximately 165 acres

East Timbalier Island, off thesoutheastern coast of Loui-siana, is shrinking and beingpushed shoreward due tothe combined effects of sea-level rise, land subsidence(sinking), and HurricanesRita and Katrina. Theseforces cause the sedimentsfrom the seaward marginsof the island to erode. Someof those materials are re-deposited on the landwardside, and some are carriedaway. The island lost over35% of its above-high-tidearea between October 2002and September 2008.

NO

AA

an

d U

SG

S

1 0

(Zedler et al., 2001; Dahl, 2006). This loss is great-est in freshwater non-tidal forested wetlands onthe coast. Coastal watersheds experienced a netloss of wetlands of around 23,877 hectares (59,000acres) per year between 1998 and 2004. Estuarinecoastal wetlands declined at an annual average rateof 2,240 hectares (5,540 acres) per year, with valu-able estuarine salt marshes experiencing the steep-est declines (Stedman and Dahl, 2008). Most ofthat loss was in coastal Louisiana.

Much of the loss of wetlands occurred in thedistant past. For example, between 1780 and 1980,it is estimated that California lost over 90% of itswetlands, Connecticut lost 74%, Maryland lost73%, and the majority of the other coastal stateslost at least 50% or more. With the advent of Fed-eral and state laws requiring a permit for manyactivities that destroy wetlands, wetland losses haveslowed in recent decades. However, with more thanhalf of the Nation’s population living within 50miles of the coast, development pressure in coastalareas continues to result in wetland loss.

Shallow marine and oceanic habitats generallyhave good water quality, and relatively little habi-tat has been lost to human activities. Neverthe-less, there are significant problems, such as the Gulfof Mexico “dead zone,” where the water underly-ing the Mississippi River plume may contain littleor no oxygen during the summer (Rabalais et al.,

2002), and the impacts of some fishing gear, par-ticularly bottom trawls, on seafloor habitats. Thereare additional unquantifiable but generally nega-tive effects from plastics and other debris in thesea, oil spills and slicks, and discarded or lost(ghost) fishing gear. Harmful algal blooms andother toxin-producing algae, which can render sea-food unfit for consumption by marine animals,people, or pets, are a recurring problem in someareas. At least some portion of this problem maybe caused by increased nutrient inflows, and theproblem could increase if ocean temperatureswarm as projected in climate change scenarios.Many facets of climate change (warming, sea-levelrise, sea-ice loss, oceanic acidification, etc.) willfurther stress habitats and could exacerbate theeffects described here.

INFORMATION QUALITY

AND RESEARCH NEEDS

In providing scientific advice on habitat-relatedissues to resource managers and officials respon-sible for living marine resources, information isneeded on how species use habitat, where habitatexists, its quantity and condition, the best prac-tices to conserve it, and how marine communi-ties, and, ultimately, sustainable fishery yields, de-pend on the amount and condition of availablehabitat. Species in all habitats, including the openocean, are vulnerable to inappropriate human ac-tions when their habitat requirements, availabil-ity, and dynamics are not known.

The quality of habitat-related information hasa major effect on the quality of decisions that arebased on it. An assessment of the quality of habi-tat information was done to identify gaps in theavailable information and to identify researchneeded to fill those gaps.

Information Quality

At the national level, habitat information formost Federally managed FMPs or species groups(as a whole or by life stage) primarily consists ofdistribution (Level 1) and habitat-related density(Level 2) information (Figure 4). Less informa-tion is available for habitat-related growth, repro-

Mar

y H

olli

ng

er, N

OD

C, N

OA

A

Reeds and a narrow channelat low tide in a marsh on thePatuxent River.

1 1

duction, and/or survival by life stage (Level 3), andhabitat-specific production (Level 4) informationis rare. Approximately 11% of the information isLevel 0, indicating a complete lack of data on habi-tat use for one or more species (or life stages) withinthe given FMP or species group. However, thespecies and species groups with unknown habitatuse generally constitute a relatively minor portionof the commercial and recreational catch.

Information on habitat-specific productivity(Level 4) is the highest and most quantitative levelof information for identifying EFH, and providesthe most definitive information for understand-ing relationships between species and their habi-tats. Such information is necessary for quantify-ing the contributions of specific habitats to theproduction of a species. Level 4 information isgenerally not available for even the most valuablespecies. The main exceptions include Alaskasalmon in fresh water and a species of seaweed,Atlantic Sargassum, in shallow marine and oceanichabitats.

Figure 5 depicts the levels of habitat-use in-formation available for the protected species groups(cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea turtles) at the na-tional level. Approximately 15% of the informa-tion is Level 0, indicating a lack of habitat-use datafor some species in particular habitats. Data gapsexist on habitat for particular life stages of varioussea turtle species in shallow marine and oceanichabitats of the Northeast, Southeast, and AlaskaRegions, as well as in estuarine habitats of theNortheast and Southeast Regions. There is a com-plete absence of data for some cetaceans in shal-low marine and oceanic habitats in the Northeast,Southeast, and Pacific Islands Regions. Of all thehabitat-use information, distribution information(Level 1) accounts for approximately 45%, habi-tat-related density information (Level 2) accountsfor approximately 31%, and habitat-specificgrowth, reproduction, or survival information(Level 3) accounts for 10%. This general patternis consistent with the pattern of information lev-els for fishery species. However, no habitat-spe-cific productivity information (Level 4) exists forany of the Nation’s cetaceans, pinnipeds, or seaturtles.

Figure 5

Habitat use information lev-els available for protectedspecies groups (cetaceans,pinnipeds, and sea turtles),all regions combined.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Perc

ent

Information level

Figure 4

Habitat use information lev-els available for FisheryManagement Plans and spe-cies groups, all regionscombined.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Perc

ent

Information level

Level 0 = No credible data on distributionor habitat use.

Level 1 = Distribution data for some or allportions of the geographicrange.

Level 2 = Habitat-related density data.Level 3 = Data on growth, reproduction,

or survival rates within habitats.Level 4 = Data on production rates by

habitat.

1 2

Research Needed

The fundamental goal for NMFS’s habitat re-search is to provide managers with the informa-tion they need to optimize the benefits societyderives from our living marine resources whilemaintaining long-term ecological sustainability.Understanding species–habitat relationships is animportant component of the information requiredfor implementing ecosystem-based approaches tomanagement, including setting fishery targets,ensuring recovery of species of conservation con-cern, protecting and restoring habitat, and main-taining ecosystem functions. There are many fac-tors to consider in setting habitat-research priori-ties, including the economic value of harvestedspecies, conservation concerns for overfished orprotected species, the roles of species in the eco-systems they occupy, the degree of dependence ofspecies on their habitats, and the vulnerability ofthose habitats to human-caused or natural distur-bance, including climate change.

Addressing the fundamental goal identifiedabove requires obtaining new information throughresearch, as well as making better use of the infor-mation that already exists. From the managementperspective, the highest priorities for habitat re-search should be the life stages most sensitive tohabitat concerns or that play a major role in de-termining population dynamics, and the habitatsmost vulnerable to disturbance. For species ofminimal economic, conservation, or ecologicalimportance, information on presence/absence ordensity by habitat type may suffice. For the mostimportant or sensitive species and habitats, pro-ductivity data by habitat type will provide the mostcomprehensive information to scientists and themanagers they advise.

Key research needs are summarized in Table1. Even for the most-studied fishery species, whichhave been the subject of intensive research formany years, important questions related to fish–habitat linkages remain unanswered. These in-clude: seasonal habitat usage by life stage, relation-ships between habitat alteration and fish survivaland production, lethal and sublethal effects of pol-lutants, and effectiveness of restoration techniques.

Table 1

Key habitat research needs identified by NMFS scientists.

Determine critical habitat requirements for each

species and life stage.

Conduct life history studies (including studies of

age, growth, maturity, and fecundity) and relation

to environment for all managed species,

particularly for the early life stages.

Determine impacts of natural and human-caused

habitat variability.

Characterize and describe seafloor and open-

ocean habitats and associated fish assemblages

on spatial scales relevant to fishery management

and habitat protection.

Delineate and map important habitats including

coastal shorelines, estuaries, salt marsh wetlands,

anadromous streams, riparian zones, submerged

aquatic vegetation (e.g. eelgrass), deepwater

corals, pinnacles, seamounts, and fishing grounds

on the Continental Shelf and Slope.

Determine effects of fishing gear on all species

and their habitats, and develop methods to reduce

damaging practices.

Develop and implement advanced methods for

research and management, including remote

sensing for oceanography and stock assessment,

and the use of marine protected areas.

Expand research and monitoring of habitat

condition.

Develop methods to protect and restore habitat.

Determine societal and economic benefits of

conserving and restoring habitat.

Research needs

Above: Eelgrass meadowsin the Waquoit Bay NationalEstuarine Research Reserve,Massachusetts.

R. C

raw

ford

, NO

AA

Nat

ion

al E

stu

arin

e R

esea

rch

Res

erve

Co

llect

ion

Below right: Wetlands andtidal streams in the Ashe Is-land area of the ACE BasinNational Estuarine Reserve,South Carolina.

NO

AA

1 3

Many of the same research needs exist formarine mammals and sea turtles as for fishery re-sources. A primary research need is to character-ize habitats for cetaceans, and to better understandmovement patterns and local abundances. Thereare recent and ongoing efforts to model cetacean-habitat occurrence using oceanographic data, butmore detailed studies are needed to gain a betterunderstanding of important habitats and their vari-ability. For endangered or threatened sea turtles,the primary need is to determine habitat use dur-ing migration and while foraging (for example,through tagging studies), and also to determineabundance and trends at key forage areas and nest-ing beaches. This knowledge will enable mitiga-tion of impacts from commercial fisheries andother causes.

There are important research needs in the areaof habitat economics. It is necessary to inventoryand review the scattered existing information onthe economic values of habitat types, so that gapsin our knowledge regarding different regions andat different scales can be identified and addressed.To support managers who evaluate proposed ac-tions that may affect habitat, research is needed toquantify the full range of potential costs and ben-efits to all sectors of society. Bioeconomic modelsare needed that quantify cumulative effects of habi-tat degradation and loss, as well as the economicconsequences from beneficial uses, such as habi-tat restoration using dredged materials.

ISSUES AFFECTING HABITAT

As the U.S. population continues to grow,there is increasing pressure on the environment toprovide humans with food, income, recreation,and other resources (Heinz Center, 2002). This isespecially evident in coastal areas, where humanpopulation growth is about five times faster thanin inland areas. Human use of aquatic habitats willof course affect those habitats, and society facesmany choices, including how to responsibly man-age growth, development, and resource use. To dothis wisely, society and decisionmakers must un-derstand the consequences of their decisions, in-cluding the potential for habitat impacts. In situ-ations where habitat impacts cannot be avoided,

decisionmakers must consider ways to reduce ormitigate impacts and to restore damaged habitats.

Although the issues affecting U.S. living ma-rine resource habitats vary throughout the coun-try, many issues are widespread, even if the im-pacts are manifested differently in different regions.Certain issues are important in all aquatic habi-tats, while others have greater impacts within acertain habitat type. The following section pre-sents information on seven of the most importantissues on a national scale:

• Pollution and water quality;• Alteration and degradation of rivers and

migratory pathways;• Fragmentation and loss of estuarine and

shallow marine habitats;• Fishing effects on habitat;• Climate variability and change;• Invasive species and marine debris; and• Vessel traffic and noise.

Information is also provided on ways to reduce ormitigate impacts, and on progress that has beenmade.

Mangrove habitat is essen-tial to many juvenile fishspecies in the subtropicalAtlantic and Gulf of Mexicocoastal waters.

NO

AA

1 4

Upper photo: Cleaning upoil from the 1989 ExxonValdez spill. Approximately2,080 km (1,300 mi) of shore-line in the region of PrinceWilliam Sound, Alaska, wasimpacted. About 320 km(200 mi) was moderately orheavily oiled, especially in-tertidal habitats. Althoughmassive mortalities re-sulted, many of the livingmarine resources have re-covered. Nonetheless, re-sidual oil remains in somehabitats, with chronic im-pacts on the species thatspawn or forage in the af-fected areas.

Lower photo: Close up ofExxon Valdez oil on thebeach.

POLLUTION AND WATER QUALITY

ISSUE:

POLLUTION AND WATER QUALITY

Water itself is habitat. Reduced water qualityresults from point sources, which release harmfulsubstances into the water from a discrete source,from spills, from non-point sources, which aremore diffuse and widespread, and from atmo-spheric deposition.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA, 2008a) rated the overall quality of theNation’s coastal waters as good to fair and improv-ing, with the best ratings in Alaskan and Hawai-ian waters. Sediment quality was rated good tofair overall, also with the best ratings in Alaskaand Hawaii, but with poor ratings in the Gulf ofMexico and Puerto Rico.

Habitat Impacts

Excess nutrients can come from point sources(e.g. sewage treatment plants), from non-pointsources (e.g. runoff from farms and suburbs), andfrom small particles deposited from the atmo-sphere. Although not directly toxic, their effectsare pervasive, especially in estuaries and coastal wa-ters. They overstimulate algal growth, leading toeutrophication (Rabalais et al., 2002; Bricker etal., 2007). Eutrophic waters contain reduced oxy-gen, are typically highly turbid (reducing thegrowth of submerged aquatic vegetation), or maybe impacted by harmful algal blooms that can betoxic to fish, or even to humans.

Stormwater runoff contains many harmfulmaterials. The sediments washed from cities, sub-urbs, construction sites, and farm fields cansmother marine plants and also carry contaminantssuch as pesticides, oil and grease, and pathogens.

Particulates from the atmosphere can be de-posited as dust, or carried in precipitation. This isbecoming recognized as a significant source ofnutrients and certain contaminants, such as theheavy metal mercury.

Toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals, petro-leum products, and pesticides, can be lethal in high

concentrations. Even at sub-lethal concentrations,toxic chemicals can accumulate in the environ-ment, often in sediments, where they can remainfor a very long time. For example, the insecticideDDT was banned in the United States in 1972,but it is still readily found in the sediments of manyof our Nation’s waterways and in the bodies ofliving marine resources.

Impacts to Living Marine Resources

Poor water quality degrades ecosystems, low-ering the productivity of many fishery and pro-tected species. According to a recent NOAA re-port (Figure 6; Bricker et al., 2007), approximatelytwo-thirds of the estuaries along the coasts of thecontinental United States exhibited at least moder-ate symptoms of eutrophication in 2004. Oxygenlevels that are too low cannot support marine life,and the loss of submerged aquatic vegetation re-duces important habitat and food for many estua-rine and coastal species. Toxic algal blooms havebeen implicated in the mortality of fish and ma-rine mammals along coastal areas and are likelyhaving impacts throughout the food chain. Sig-nificant portions of U.S. fishing areas are closedeach year to protect the public from sewage con-tamination and potentially dangerous concentra-tions of algal toxins in shellfish.

Chemical spills can cause acute mortalities ofmarine mammals, seabirds, fish, and invertebrates.However, chronic impacts are often a greater con-cern. Many substances, including metals, pesticides,and other organic compounds, can bioaccumu-late, increasing in concentration in the tissues ofanimals that feed on contaminated food sources,increasing mortality and reducing reproduction.

Solutions

Progress has been made to reduce water qual-ity impacts, particularly from point sources. Tech-nology exists to monitor and reduce point sourcesof pollution, and the Clean Water Act has regu-lated point-source discharges since 1972. Regula-tions exist to ensure proper cleanup of contami-nants after an oil or chemical spill as well. En-forcement of such laws has reduced the prevalence

Exx

on

Val

dez

Oil

Sp

ill T

rust

ee C

ou

nci

lO

RR

, NO

S, N

OA

A

1 5

POLLUTION AND WATER QUALITY

MilesKilometers

0 200 400

0 100 200

")

!(!(

")

!(")

#*#*""""

)!(

")")

")")

")

")

")")

#*#*

#*!(!(

!(

(

!(!( #*!(#*

#*#*!(

!(

#*")")

#*

!(

")")")

")")!(#*

")

#*

#*

!(!(

")

")

"

"

)

)

")

#*

#*")

#*")")

")")

")

")

")")")")")!(")

")")")")

")

")!(")#*

#*

"

"

)

)!(")

#*

!(

#*

!(

Symptoms worsened since 1999 assessment.

Symptoms improved since 1999 assessment. No change in symptoms since 1999 assessment.

Insufficient data to show trend.

"

High: symptoms occur periodically or persistently and/or over an extensive area.Moderate high: symptoms occur less regularly and/or over a medium to extensive area.Moderate: symptoms occur less regularly and/or over a medium area.Moderate low: symptoms occur episodically and/or over a small to medium area.Low: few symptoms occur at more than minimal levels.Unknown: Insufficient data for analysis.

")")

")

")

")")

)")"

")

")

Change in eutrophic condition since 1999 assessmentOverall eutrophic condition (OEC)

!

!(

")

#*

!#*)

((

")

"))"))

!(

")")

")

!(!(

")")

")")")

")")")

(!

")")#*

#*

!(

))

)"

!(

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er o

f es

tuar

ies

18 17

35

14 15

Low HighModerate high

ModerateModerate low

!(

"))

")")#*")

!(

and impacts of point-source pollution on waterquality and improved the Nation’s waterways, butadditional progress is needed.

Less progress has been made at controllingnon-point sources of pollution (Heinz Center,2002; Chesapeake Bay Program, 2008), becauseit was more recently recognized as a problem andis much more diffuse than point-source pollution.Although non-point source pollution is difficultto control, sections of the Clean Water Act requirejurisdictions to reduce surface runoff to the “maxi-

mum extent practicable.” Individuals and citizengroups can reduce non-point pollution throughawareness and environmentally responsible actions(e.g. proper disposal of household chemicals, main-tenance of septic systems and cars). Improved land-use practices can reduce run-off from urban andagricultural landscapes, as well as reduce the con-centrations of contaminants in the water that doesrun off. Spills can be prevented (e.g. by requiringenhanced safety practices for industrial facilitiesand shipping), and the clean-up of spills can beexpedited.

Bri

cker

et

al. ,

200

7

Figure 6

Eutrophic conditions in U.S.coastal waters in 2004, andchange since 1999 (Bricker etal., 2007).

Josh

Har

per

, Tex

as D

epar

tmen

t o

f P

arks

an

d W

ildlif

e

NO

AA Left: NOAA ship surveys of

water quality show low oxy-gen areas in the Gulf ofMexico “dead zone” as redsand oranges.

Right: Gulf menhaden killedby hypoxia in MatagordaBay, Texas.

1 6

ISSUE:

ALTERATION AND DEGRADATION OF

RIVERS AND MIGRATORY PATHWAYS

Many factors affect river habitats, such as ur-banization, agriculture, timber harvest, and min-ing. Of these activities, dams and other water-con-trol structures have the greatest overall impacts.There are thousands of these structures in U.S.rivers. For example, the Columbia River and itsmain tributaries contain over 250 reservoirs and150 hydroelectric projects, including 18 mainstemdams.

Habitat Impacts

Dams fragment river habitats and present im-pediments to catadromous fishes such as eels(which spawn in the ocean and grow to maturityin fresh water) and anadromous fishes such assalmon, sturgeon, striped bass, shad, and riverherring (Roni, 2005; NMFS, 2008). Dams alsochange upstream habitat by creating reservoirs thatslow water velocities and alter temperatures. Re-duced freshwater flows resulting from water re-movals for domestic and commercial use can af-fect river and downstream estuarine habitats aswell. Altering natural flows and the processes as-

sociated with flow rates (such as nutrient and sedi-ment transport) impact in-stream habitats, shore-line riparian habitats, and prey bases. Water qual-ity may also be reduced from water withdrawals:temperature, salinity, and concentrations of toxicchemicals all increase as water volumes shrink;dissolved oxygen decreases; and pathogens may beintroduced.

Changes to stream beds and banks and stream-side vegetation can have major impacts on adja-cent aquatic habitats. Hydrologic characteristicssuch as temperature and dissolved oxygen can bealtered, and habitat complexity can be reduced bylowering the availability of large woody debris.Changing flow and channel structure, increasingstream bank instability and erosion, and alteringnutrient and prey sources also degrade riverinehabitat.

Impacts to Living Marine Resources

By blocking upstream access for migratingspecies, dams greatly reduce the amount of habi-tat available for spawning, feeding, growth, andmigration. Adequate freshwater flow is critical toall life stages, from eggs to spawning adults, soreduced flow can have a negative effect on anadro-

To

dd

Ben

net

t, N

MFS

WASHINGTON

IDAHO OREGON

CANADA

UNITED

MONTANA

Snake River

Snake River

Salmon River

Clark Fork River

Columbia River

Des

chut

es

Riv

er

Wi l l

ame t

t e

Col

umbi

a R

.

P

acifi

c O

cean

Owyhee River

Bend

Boise

Yakima

Eugene

Olympia

Medford

Spokane Seattle

Richland Lewiston

Missoula

Portland

Kalispell

Pendleton

Pocatello

0 80 160 240 40 Miles

Map by StreamNet Project forPSMFC, November 2006

Accessible Habitat

Blocked Habitat

Major City

Major River

Columbia Basin

Left: Accessible and blockedanadromous fish habitat inthe Columbia River basin.On the Columbia River andits main tributaries, over 250reservoirs and 150 hydro-electric projects reduce ac-cess and use of a majorityof the 647,500 km2 (250,000mi2) drainage basin (PSMFC,2006).

Right: Spawning pinksalmon are holding in a poolin Bacon Creek, Washington.Note the clean gravel in theriverbed that is clear of mudand silt. This is a require-ment of habitat suitable foregg laying.

ALTERATION AND DEGRADATION OF R IVERS AND MIGRATORY PATHWAYS

PS

FMC

, 200

6

1 7

mous and catadromous fish populations. As anexample, a drought extending from 2001 through2005 in the Klamath River basin of California andOregon, combined with above-average withdraw-als for agricultural use during the drought, allowedfor the proliferation of endemic diseases, causinglarge fish kills. As a result, the Klamath River Chi-nook salmon stock fell below conservation objec-tives. This triggered the declaration of a commer-cial fishery failure by the Secretary of Commercein 2006, which authorized a total of $60.4 mil-lion for distribution to eligible participants in theWest Coast salmon fishery (DOC, 2006).

Solutions

Healthy riparian corridors are important com-ponents of river ecosystems (Roni, 2005). Themost effective strategy is to conserve existing in-tact systems. However, human populations andassociated development are continuing to expand.To reduce human impacts, activities such as ur-ban development, mining, and timber harvestshould maintain a reasonable minimum distancebetween streams and rivers and their operations.Restoration activities, such as native vegetation re-planting and the addition of large woody debris,are currently improving river habitats for anadro-mous species. An example is the Chewuch Riverin Washington State, where restoration efforts havebeen successful at improving habitat for residentand migratory species of fish, including severalthreatened or endangered species.

Mitigation measures, such as fish ladders andbarging of migrating juvenile salmon, may be par-tially effective, but are in place only at some dams(NMFS, 2008). Juvenile bypass systems to guideout-migrating juveniles past the turbines have ef-ficiencies as low as 30% for some species. More-over, mitigation often targets salmon exclusively,ignoring the impact of dams on other anadromousand freshwater species.

In some instances, removal of a dam can re-verse habitat damage and restore historical riverflows and fish migration routes. For example,Sennebec Dam, built in 1916 on the St. GeorgeRiver in Union, Maine, blocked passage to over

half the St. George watershed for Atlantic salmon,alewife, shad, eel, and river herring. By the end ofthe 20th century, this was the only remaining bar-rier in the watershed. Trout Unlimited, with sub-stantial NOAA funding, removed the dam in 2002and replaced it with a roughened fish ramp about0.4 km (0.25 mi) upstream. This resulted in 27km (17 mi) of available fish habitat on the St.George River, while increasing safety below theformer hydropower dam, reducing maintenancecosts, and maintaining the recreational value ofSennebec Pond. Success stories such as this arepropelling a movement in the United States toremove obsolete dams and restore healthy riverhabitats.

Although dam removal has proved successfulat restoring damaged river habitats, it is often nota viable option due to competing river uses (in-cluding use of dams for flood control). There iscurrently heated debate about whether four damson the Lower Snake River in eastern Washingtonshould be removed (see Columbia River Basin mapon previous page). Removal would restore 225 km(140 mi) of habitat that historically supported 50%of salmon returning to the Columbia River Basin,but would also eliminate substantial social and eco-nomic benefits that result from irrigation, elec-tricity, and river navigation services that the damsprovide.

The removal, with the help ofNOAA funding, of NewHampshire’s West HennikerDam, 18 feet tall, opened 15miles of riverine habitat inthe Contoocook River to mi-gratory fishes such as Atlan-tic salmon and American eel.

ALTERATION AND DEGRADATION OF R IVERS AND MIGRATORY PATHWAYS

New

Ham

psh

ire

Dep

artm

ent

of

En

viro

nm

enta

l Ser

vice

s/N

OA

A

1 8

ISSUE:

FRAGMENTATION AND LOSS

OF ESTUARINE AND SHALLOW

MARINE HABITAT

Habitat loss occurs when habitat is destroyedor altered to the point that it can no longer pro-vide the requisite ecological functions. Habitatfragmentation occurs when natural or human ac-tivities cause a habitat to become separated intoisolated areas, disrupting migratory corridors, iso-lating local populations, and disrupting or prevent-ing access to portions of habitat necessary for food,growth, or reproduction.

Habitat Impacts

A wide range of human activities in coastalwatersheds causes habitat loss and fragmentation.While the effects of individual projects may berelatively modest, the scale of human activities inthe coastal zone is so great that there are substan-tial cumulative effects. Placing fill in wetlands orother aquatic habitats for development is a sig-nificant factor. Over-water, shoreline protection,and water-control structures can have serious im-pacts on local habitat, including removal of veg-etation and natural substrates, and blocking thesunlight needed by aquatic plants. Dredging re-moves bottom habitat and degrades water qualitythrough increased turbidity and siltation, releaseof oxygen-consuming substances and contami-nants, and alteration of physical habitat and hy-

drographic regimes. Disposal of dredged materialcan have these same effects and can smotherbenthic habitats. Additionally, predicted climate-related sea level rise threatens shallow marine habi-tats such as mudflats and salt marshes.

Wetland loss is widely recognized as a signifi-cant environmental problem (Dahl, 2006). For ex-ample, the average annual loss of wetlands in Con-necticut between 1880 and 1970 was about 28hectares (70 acres) per year, leading to a 30% lossof wetlands state-wide over this period. More than70% of the estuarine wetlands have been lost ordegraded in the Pacific Northwest and California.Since the 1930’s, Louisiana has lost from 38 to108 km2 (15 to 42 mi2) of wetlands per year dueto land subsidence, sea-level rise, and erosion fromtropical storms. Flood-control levees on the Mis-sissippi River channel the river’s drainage directlyinto the Gulf of Mexico. This prevents the annualfloods that previously deposited new sedimentsand detritus on the adjacent wetlands and marshes.

Impacts to Living Marine Resources

The loss or fragmentation of habitat reducesthe ecological services that habitat provides. Thespecies most affected are those that depend onhabitats where humans are most active, i.e. habi-tats located in watersheds, estuaries, or near thecoast. As shown previously in Figures 2 and 3, thegreat majority of the fishery and protected-spe-cies stocks that NOAA manages use estuarine andshallow-marine habitats, with the percentage thatuse freshwater habitats varying by region. Even spe-cies that spend most of their lives far out at sea,such as some anadromous fishes, marine mammals,and seabirds, depend on these heavily-impactedhabitats for certain key aspects of their life histo-ries, such as spawning, larval or juvenile growth,calving, or nesting. Also, state-managed stocks,which occur primarily in state waters inside the 3-mile limit, all depend on these habitats.

Solutions

Solutions to habitat loss and fragmentation in-clude conserving and protecting existing habitat,and restoring or enhancing lost, fragmented, or

Above: Impacted and erodedmarsh on Staten Island, NewYork.

NO

AA

FRAGMENTATION AND LOSS OF ESTUARINE AND SHALLOW MARINE HABITAT

1 9

degraded habitat to recover ecological function.Creating or restoring habitat is usually much moreexpensive and less effective than protecting habi-tat that already exists and is functioning. The sci-ence of creating and restoring habitats is relativelynew, so more research is needed to develop andevaluate restoration methods.

Understanding the relationships between spe-cies and habitats, and knowing where habitat ex-ists, are the first steps toward habitat protectionand conservation. Thus a key ingredient for con-serving habitat is developing and providing infor-mation to resource managers and the public abouthabitat status, function, and relationship to vari-ous species. An example is Chesapeake Bay, fromwhich most of the submerged aquatic vegetation,an important habitat that supports key species suchas the blue crab, has been lost due to centuries ofpoor land use practices and declining water qual-ity. The public has supported extensive regionalefforts to improve water quality. There has been arebound from the low point of 1984, such thatvegetated areas have roughly doubled. However,the total vegetated area only covers approximatelyone-third of the 2010 restoration goal of 75,000hectares (185,000 acres) (Chesapeake Bay Pro-gram, 2008).

One successful approach to prevent habitat lossis to provide legal protection. More than 1,000areas within U.S. waters are granted some level ofspecial protection by Federal or state governments.However, only about 1% of the ocean within U.S.jurisdiction qualifies as marine protected area, andonly about 10% of that carries the highest level ofprotection, where fishing and other extractive ac-tivities are precluded.

NOAA and partners designated protected sta-tus to three significant areas of the U.S. EEZ in

20061. Marine waters totaling 388,500 km2

(150,000 mi2) off the U.S. West Coast were des-ignated as Essential Fish Habitat for commerciallyvaluable fish. The Aleutian Islands Habitat Con-servation Area encompasses over 950,000 km2

(366,795 mi2), an area approximately the size ofTexas and Colorado combined. The Papahanau-mokuakea Marine National Monument containsnearly 362,600 km2 (140,000 mi2) of emergentand submerged lands and waters of the North-western Hawaiian Islands, including over 13,200km2 (5,100 mi2) of coral reefs and over 7,000marine species. It is home to almost the entirepopulation of endangered Hawaiian monk sealsand is the breeding ground for over 90% of theHawaiian green sea turtle population.

The task of conserving and protecting habi-tats goes well beyond the abilities and funding ofstate and Federal agencies. Individual citizens andtheir organizations at the local, regional, and na-tional levels are the key to successful actions. It isthrough education and consciousness raising thatmany harmful actions can be avoided or corrected.

1On 6 January 2009, President George W. Bush designatedthree new National Monuments in the tropical westernPacific, with a total area of over 505,000 km2 (over 195,000mi2) (White House, 2009). The largely uninhabited areascontain pristine coral reefs, volcanic ecosystems, and theMariana Trench, which, at some 11,000 m (36,000 ft) depth,is the deepest region in the oceans. Protections include banson fishing and shipping.

Bo

th p

ho

tos

© P

eter

Ber

gst

rom

Local groups of concernedcitizens can take an activerole in conserving and re-storing habitat. Here, mem-bers of the Magothy RiverAssociation are plantingseagrass in a small tributaryon the western shore ofChesapeake Bay, which hasbeen heavily impacted bydevelopment, declining wa-ter quality, and habitat loss.

FRAGMENTATION AND LOSS OF ESTUARINE AND SHALLOW MARINE HABITAT

2 0

ISSUE:

FISHING EFFECTS ON HABITAT

The impacts of fishing on habitat can be verysignificant, potentially resulting in ecosystem shiftsthat include altered species composition, changesin trophic structure, and reduced biodiversity.Because of these concerns, the Magnuson-StevensReauthorization Act requires that fishery manage-ment councils assess fishing impacts to EFH andminimize the impacts of fishing to the extent prac-ticable. Congress was aware this could lead to fish-ing gear restrictions and time/area closures.

Habitat Impacts

The effects of fishing gear on habitat can bedirect and indirect, and act over both short- andlong-term scales (Barnes and Thomas, 2002). Theimpacts resulting from both fixed (longlines,gillnets, traps, and pots) and mobile (trawls anddredges) gear depend on the spatial extent of op-erations, level of effort, type of gear, and the sen-sitivity of the particular habitat. Mobile fishinggear is of particular concern and may have a greatereffect on a regional scale, but other fishing prac-tices (such as traps and gill nets) may have a moresignificant ecological effect in local areas, depend-

ing on the nature of the fishery and habitat. Moststudies of the effects of fishing on habitat haveonly looked at local spatial scales, making it diffi-cult to apply results to management efforts on anecosystem level.

In addition to impacts from fixed and mobiletypes of gear, destructive fishing methods such asthe use of poison or explosives cause major dam-age to marine habitats. These methods are oftenused in coral reef habitats, killing or breaking apartthe living substrates these reefs provide. Such prac-tices are banned in the United States, but may stilloccur in U.S. island territories.

Habitats vary in their sensitivity. Fauna thatlive in habitats with a low level of natural distur-bance are generally more vulnerable. Such habi-tats often have large, slow-growing structures likedeep corals, which are likely to take many years torecover from the damage caused by mobile gear(Lumsden et al., 2007). Habitats that normallyexperience high levels of natural physical distur-bance (e.g. high-energy sandy bottoms) tend tobe less vulnerable to the impacts of mobile gear(Link et al., 2005).

Substrate at Northeast Peakin Georges Bank, off theMassachusetts coast, whichis subjected to fairly highlevels of natural physicaldisturbance due to stormsand strong tidal currents.

Left: Gravel habitat heavilyimpacted by mobile fishinggear. Note that the gravel isclean, and that sand showsbetween the pebbles.

Middle: Recovering seafloorcommunity that has beenclosed to trawling for 2.5years. Note that there issome cover by attached or-ganisms, primarily sponges.

Right: Unfished gravel habi-tat on the Canadian side ofGeorges Bank. Note thenearly full cover provided byattached organisms.

F ISHING EFFECTS ON HABITAT

Pag

e V

alen

tin

e, U

SG

S

2 1

Impacts to Living Marine Resources

The significance to fisheries productivity ofgear impacts on habitat is generally not wellknown. The vulnerability of habitats to gear im-pacts may be greater when fishing is combinedwith other habitat stressors. Short-term effects areusually directly observable and measurable. Whilethe impacts may be immediate, it may take yearsbefore the damage is repaired. Of the greatest con-cern are the impacts of trawling and dredging onhabitat complexity. By directly damaging or re-moving living, structure-building components ofhabitat such as corals and burrowing species, re-peated trawling and dredging can reduce produc-tivity of benthic habitats and result in discerniblechanges in benthic communities. Removal of reef-building species will cause large changes to thespecies assemblages associated with the reef struc-ture itself. For example, repeated dredging of oys-ter reefs reduces not only the oyster population,but the populations of all the species that use themfor foraging or shelter.

The longer-term effects of fishing may be in-direct and are more difficult to quantify. Fishingoperations in an area can cause changes that lin-ger long after the often immediate and measur-able reductions in the densities of both target andnon-target organisms. Excess removal of speciescan disrupt ecological function and balance,change habitats, and allow undesirable species toincrease in abundance. For example, in Jamaica,removal of herbivorous fishes through over-har-vest initiated a massive ecosystem shift from a

coral-dominated reef community to a less produc-tive algae-dominated system.

Solutions

Although fishing can have substantial impactson aquatic habitats, there are a number of ways toreduce those impacts. Prohibiting or limiting fish-ing through time/area closures, allowing time forliving habitats to regenerate, and restricting gearhave been successful in protecting critical or sen-sitive habitats. More limited measures can also haveprofound impacts. The Aleutian Islands HabitatConservation Area, designated by NOAA in 2006,has enforced several fishing closures in the Aleu-tian Islands and Gulf of Alaska to protect deep seacorals and other fragile parts of the ecosystem (e.g.rockfish habitat, seamounts) from bottom trawl-ing. An area this large has a complex set of regula-tions intended to protect undisturbed or sensitivehabitat, while allowing economically valuable fish-ing to continue. For example, bottom trawling isallowed in areas that have supported the highestcatches of groundfish in the past, and is prohib-ited in all other areas to protect relatively undis-turbed habitats.

More research is needed to further reduce theimpacts of fishing gear on habitat. This includesresearch to better understand the ability of habi-tats to sustain fishing impacts; research on habitatrestoration, especially for fragile biological habi-tats, such as corals; and research to develop lessdamaging fishing gear.

F ISHING EFFECTS ON HABITAT

Left: The deepwater coralLophilia in its natural state.

Right. A Lophilia coral reefafter bottom trawling.

© B

oth

ph

oto

s co

urt

esty

of

Mar

ean

o, I

nst

itu

te o

f M

arin

e R

esea

rch

, No

rway

2 2

ISSUE:

CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE

Natural climate variability can be seeminglyrandom from year to year, may operate over sev-eral years, such as the 2- to 7-year cycle of the ElNiño Southern Oscillation, over decades, such asthe North Atlantic Oscillation, or even over mil-lennia, such as the ice ages. Some species and popu-lations can adapt to climate change, while othersmay virtually disappear or go extinct.

Superimposed on this natural variability is anew threat from human-induced (or anthropo-genic) global warming, widely believed to becaused by emission of greenhouse gases, such ascarbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Warm-ing of about 0.74°C (1.5°F) has been observedover the last 100 years. The IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) projectsfurther global warming of 1.1–6.4°C (2.0–11.5°F)by the year 2100. NOAA paleoclimatological datashow that the earth has not been as warm as theprojection’s lower bounds since the last intergla-cial period, 120,000 years ago (NOAA, 2006).

Habitat Impacts

Regional and local changes will differ from theglobal averages discussed here, and some habitatsare more vulnerable to these changes.

Increases in ocean temperatures have beenwidely detected. Predicted impacts include moreincreases in water temperature, changes in oceancurrents, and increased intensity of tropical storms.There have been major losses of polar ice in thelast few decades, although the Antarctic changesare not uniform and tend to balance. Because ofthermal expansion of the oceans and ice melting,global mean sea level has been rising at an averagerate of 1–2 mm (0.04–0.08 in) per year over thepast 100 years, significantly faster than the rateaveraged over the last several thousand years. Theprojected increase in sea level by 2100 is anywherefrom 0.18 to 0.59 m (7.1–23.2 in).

Another effect of carbon dioxide emissions thatis only recently beginning to receive attention isocean acidification. Approximately 30–50% ofglobal anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissionsare absorbed by the world’s oceans, which is ex-pected to increase surface ocean acidity by 0.14–0.35 pH units over the next century. Dependingon emissions, the increase in ocean acidity overthe next few centuries is expected to exceed thechanges seen over the past few hundred millionyears.

Impacts to Living Marine Resources

Some species will be negatively impacted un-der most scenarios for human-induced climatechange, while other species may benefit. Severalpotential negative impacts from global warminginclude accelerated loss of beaches and wetlandsdue to sea level rise, loss of habitat for cold-waterand ice-dependent species, coral bleaching,changes in ecosystem productivity, and seasonaltiming of physical and life-history events. Positiveimpacts may include decreased winter mortalitiesof some species and increased habitat availabilityfor some warm-water species.

Coral bleaching is a symptom of environmen-tal stresses such as diseases, sedimentation, pollu-tion, and increased temperature. In a bleachingevent, coral polyps expel the photosynthetic cellsof unicellular algae, called zooxanthellae, whichnormally live symbiotically within their tissues andprovide nutrients and a characteristic color. The

Bu

dd

Ch

rist

man

, NO

AA

Co

rps

Above: A group of walrushauled out on sea ice in theBering Sea. As sea ice dis-appears due to climaticwarming, so too does theecosystem it supports andthe habitat it provides.

CLIMATE VARIABIL ITY AND CHANGE

2 3

remaining carbonate skeleton is light in color, andlooks as if it were bleached.

In the bleaching event shown in adjoiningphotograph on the next page, over 89% of thelive coral was bleached, including brain coral (inthe foreground) and mountainous star coral (largecolonies in the distance), which are the dominantreef builders in the western Atlantic. Certain fastgrowing taxa (lettuce coral and file coral) experi-enced extensive mortality, while long-lived specieslike those shown suffered partial mortality affect-ing up to 40% of their surface. From the fisheriesperspective, loss of the living coral means that thehabitat it provides for coral reef-dwelling fish willalso be lost.

Ocean acidification likely will impact the abil-ity of marine calcifiers, such as corals and mol-lusks, to make their shells and skeletons from thecalcium carbonate dissolved in sea water. Oceanacidification may indirectly affect fish and marinemammals through reduced abundance of marinecalcifiers that form the base of the food web andthat provide habitat structure. Ocean acidificationis an emerging concern and an important area fornew research.

Solutions

Addressing the issue of anthropogenic climatechange has two basic components: reducing emis-sions of the greenhouse gases that are causing glo-bal warming, and adapting to the changes that arealready occurring. The first priority, reducinggreenhouse gas emissions, will require reducing therelease of carbon dioxide on a global scale. Amongthe approaches are development of alternate en-ergy sources, such as solar, geothermal, wind, andocean current, as well as increased developmentof nuclear power. Carbon sequestration is a dif-ferent technical approach, in which the carbondioxide produced from burning fossil fuels is se-questered underground instead of released into theatmosphere.

Energy conservation is an important compo-nent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thiscan be accomplished through many approaches.

Some are technical, such as improving the fuel ef-ficiency of automobiles, power plants, and indus-trial processes. Others combine technical and so-cietal changes, such as expanding the availabilityand use of public transportation. There also areeconomic approaches to changing societal patternsof energy use, such as fuel taxes or selling permitsfor carbon dioxide release.

Because anthropogenic climate changes are al-ready occurring, the science and management ofliving marine resources must adapt. Some of thescience that will be required is basic research, suchas improving the understanding of how climatechanges are affecting watersheds, estuaries, andoceans, and the structure and function of the habi-tats, ecosystems, and species they contain. Im-proved monitoring that incorporates the latest re-search findings will enable scientists to better un-derstand the changes that are occurring and theirpotential impacts on living marine resources. Thiswill provide managers with greater lead times andgive them better opportunities to respond tochanging conditions. Applied research for restor-ing degraded habitats and establishing new onesalso will provide managers with new and betteroptions for adapting to climate change. Manage-ment can also adapt to the higher levels of uncer-tainty that will accompany climate change. Increas-ing the levels of protection of vulnerable habitatsand more conservative fisheries management couldhelp to ensure that stocks remain viable as theirhabitats change.

An

dy

Bru

ckn

er, N

MFS

Coral reef bleaching off De-secheo Island, Puerto Rico,in December 2005.

CLIMATE VARIABIL ITY AND CHANGE

2 4

ISSUE:

INVASIVE SPECIES

AND MARINE DEBRIS

The introduction of non-native species and therelease of marine debris are both unintended con-sequences of human activities. Because of the lackof native predators or pathogens, some non-nativespecies can invade new ecosystems into which theyare introduced and become highly abundant.NOAA defines marine debris as “any persistentsolid material that is manufactured or processedand directly or indirectly, intentionally or unin-tentionally, disposed of or abandoned into themarine environment or the Great Lakes” (NOAA,2009). As human activity has increased in aquaticand coastal environments, rates of introductionof non-native species and marine debris have in-creased as well.

Impacts to Habitat and

Living Marine Resources

Invasive species are prevalent in all aquatichabitat types and regions (EPA, 2008b). For ex-ample, about 240 invasive species have becomeestablished in San Francisco Bay alone. Some ofthese species are responsible for reducing native

food supplies, eliminating native species, reduc-ing fisheries productivity, and causing substantialhabitat alterations. The invasive sea squirt,Didemnum, is proliferating on gravel bottoms onGeorges Bank, in highly productive scallop habi-tats. There is concern that the infestation coulddisrupt food chains and interfere with the settle-ment of scallop larvae (NEFSC, 2006). Non-na-tive species can also carry novel diseases. MSX, adevastating parasitic oyster disease now widespreadin the Mid-Atlantic, is thought to have arrived inoysters brought from Japan in the 1950’s. This dis-ease kills oysters, and has been a significant factorto the drastic decline in oyster harvest in Dela-ware and Chesapeake Bays. Loss of the oysters alsodegrades the reef habitat they provide.

Non-native species are introduced into aquatichabitats through both intentional and accidentalrelease. Since the 1800’s, few bodies of water havebeen immune to deliberate introductions of spe-cies by government agencies and citizens. Thesehave included various trout and salmon, clams,oysters, and carp, for recreational, food, or otherpurposes. Ballast water, taken onboard at one lo-cation to stabilize ships for transit and then re-leased at the destination port, may contain mil-lions of alien eggs, larvae, and microorganisms.Recreational boaters may also introduce alien spe-cies into waterways when they move their plea-sure craft between areas without proper precau-tions. The aquarium trade and accidental releasesfrom aquaculture operations are additional path-ways of non-native introductions.

Marine debris is widely distributed (EPA,2008c). For example, even in the largely uninhab-ited Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), itis estimated that about 1,600 metric tons (t) ofdebris litter the shorelines. Marine debris resultsfrom numerous sources, including at-sea dump-ing and land-based littering or illegal dumping. Itcan cause significant physical damage to fragilehabitats like coral reefs, introduce toxic substancesand pathogens, and cover salt marshes, wetlands,and shallow water habitats, making them inacces-

Above: In Hawaii, invasivealgal species have spread tobecome the dominant bot-tom cover in some reef andcoastal areas. The invasiveCladophora algae in thisphotograph has overgrownand smothered the coral inthis area off Maui.

© L

ind

a P

resk

itt,

Un

iv. H

awai

i

INVASIVE SPECIES AND MARINE DEBRIS

2 5

sible to species that use them and vulnerable toinvasive species.

Marine debris poses a serious threat to the sur-vival of some endangered or threatened sea birds,marine mammals, and turtles. For example, seaturtles will ingest plastic bags that closely resemblejellyfish (their typical food) in appearance and theneventually die of starvation due to blockage of theirdigestive tracts. Discarded or lost fishing gear suchas gillnet panels, traps, crab pots, and longlineswith hundreds of hooks may continue to fish(“ghost fishing”) for many years.

Solutions

Control of alien species is very difficult oncethey have become established in a new habitat, sopreventing new introductions and responding rap-idly to newly discovered introductions are very im-portant. The Nonindigenous Aquatic NuisancePrevention and Control Act, passed in 1990, aimsto both prevent future introductions and controlexisting populations of non-native species. Tech-nological advances, such as onboard use of bio-cides, filtration, and anti-fouling coatings, as wellas development of shore-based treatment facilities,are making control of introductions from ballastwater more effective.

More attention is being paid to deliberate in-troductions. For example, the Asian oyster mayprove less vulnerable to the diseases that have dev-astated the native oysters in Chesapeake Bay, butthe National Academy of Sciences recommendeda complex research program with strict manage-ment controls prior to introduction to rigorouslyevaluate the potential benefits and risks of intro-ducing this non-native species (NRC, 2004).

Strict regulations and enforcement efforts ex-ist to restrict at-sea dumping; however, land-basedsources of debris account for about 80% of inor-ganic waste found in U.S. coastal areas. Local civicactions such as litter removal and beach clean-upshave been effective at reducing the amount of de-bris in the marine environment. Increasing publicawareness can also help. The Ocean Conservancy’sInternational Coastal Cleanup program found a

48% decrease in the number of items found permile during beach clean-ups between 1994 and2000 (The Ocean Conservancy, 2002).

NMFS has been actively involved in marinedebris removal from the NWHI since 1996. Over511 t of derelict fishing gear has been removed aspart of a multiagency partnership supported bythe NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program andthe Marine Debris Program. A 5-year intensiveeffort removed much of the historical debris onthe coral reefs of the NWHI. NOAA was able tocollect 19 t in 2006 in the first year of the mainte-nance-level effort, but a recent study estimated theaccumulation rate to be 52 t annually. NMFS isevaluating new technologies, such as remote sens-ing and unmanned aerial vehicles, to detect andremove debris at sea before it damages reef ecosys-tems and impacts protected species.

NO

AA

Above: Debris cleaned upfrom Midway Atoll, at the farwestern end of the HawaiianIslands. Discarded fishingnets make up most of thedebris shown.

Left: Emaciated northern furseal entangled with a sec-tion of fishing net.

PIF

SC

, NM

FS, N

OA

A

INVASIVE SPECIES AND MARINE DEBRIS

2 6

ISSUE:

VESSEL TRAFFIC AND NOISE

Vessel traffic can affect marine habitats in anumber of ways. Collisions between vessels and ma-rine mammals or sea turtles, which occur when shipsare transiting these animals’ habitats, can have im-portant impacts on fragile populations of these pro-tected species. Noise is potentially the most per-vasive pollutant in marine habitats.

Habitat Impacts

In addition to the introduction of non-nativespecies from ballast water discussed previously,vessel traffic has several potential impacts to thehabitats of living marine resources. Near ports,where deep-draft ocean-going ships frequentlytransit through relatively shallow navigationalchannels, the re-suspension of sediments by pass-ing ships can reduce water quality by increasingturbidity and decreasing light penetration, andtoxic chemicals in sediments may be released intothe water column. An additional concern is thepossibility of fuel or oil spills. In 1989, the ExxonValdez ran aground in Prince William Sound,Alaska, and spilled approximately 260,000 bar-

rels of crude oil, contaminating approximately2,080 km (1,300 mi) of Alaskan shoreline.

Ocean noise is one of the most controversialand poorly understood habitat threats (U.S. Navy,2006; Boyd et al., 2008). Noise comes from vesseltraffic, geophysical exploration, active sonars, con-struction activities, and other sources. It is ubiq-uitous in the marine environment, and is increas-ing throughout the oceans by an average of 3decibels per decade (essentially doubling). High-intensity underwater sound production from re-search, military, or other activities can reach over235 decibels, as loud as an underwater earthquake.Sound of this magnitude can travel great distancesand is detected at high levels even hundreds ofmiles from its source.

Impacts to Living Marine Resources

For some species, such as the highly endan-gered northern right whale, collisions with vesselsare a key factor preventing their recovery. Between1970 and 1994, vessel encounters were implicatedin 7% of injuries and 28% of known right whaledeaths (Jensen and Silber, 2003).

Above: A ship-struck seiwhale on the bow of a con-tainer ship in ChesapeakeBay.

Cin

dy

Dri

sco

ll, M

aryl

and

Dep

artm

ent

of

Nat

ura

l Res

ou

rces

VESSEL TRAFFIC AND NOISE

2 7

Spills from ships have both acute and chroniceffects. Because oil floats, the most observable im-pacts of oil spills are to animals that frequent thesurface, such as sea birds and marine mammals.When it reaches the shore, spilled oil is depositedprimarily in the intertidal and shallow subtidalzones. Following the Exxon Valdez spill, the larg-est deposit of oil was in the upper and middle in-tertidal zones on sheltered rocky shores. Some ofthe species affected by that spill included sea ot-ters, harbor seals, and killer whales. Pacific her-ring, which spawn in shallow coastal habitats, andsalmon, which transit these areas as spawningadults and out-migrating juveniles, were also sig-nificantly affected. Fourteen years after the ExxonValdez spill, residual oil was still present in somehabitats. It continues to be a problem for speciesthat spawn or forage in these areas. This persis-tence of oil may delay for many years the com-plete recovery of some habitats or species (Petersonet al., 2003).

Currently, the impacts of noise on marinemammals are receiving considerable attention.Recent mass strandings of beaked whales haveoccurred in close association (in time and space)with military exercises that used high-energy, mid-frequency (1–10 kilohertz [kHz]) sonars. Sonarhas also been implicated in altering the singing ofhumpback whales, disrupting the feeding of orcas,and causing porpoises to leap from the water orpanic and flee. There is currently no documentedevidence of ocean noise being the direct physiologi-cal agent of any marine mammal deaths, but analy-sis of fresh, whole animals is rarely possible, and adefinitive diagnosis of the cause of death is oftenproblematic.

As with marine mammals, many species of fishuse sound to follow migration routes, locate eachother, find food, and care for their young. Thepotential impact of noise on fish is relatively un-known. It is clear that animals that use sound forcommunication and navigation can easily be af-fected, but it is less clear what levels will actuallycause damage to animal tissues and hearing or-gans.

VESSEL TRAFFIC AND NOISE

Solutions

Designating critical habitat areas for marinemammals vulnerable to vessel collisions, and re-stricting vessel traffic within those areas, has beensuccessful at reducing vessel impacts, and will con-tinue to help susceptible populations. Recent regu-lations limiting the speed of vessels 20 m (65 ft)or longer to 18.5 km/hr (10 knots) within 37 km(20 n.mi.) of major Atlantic ports are intended toprotect the northern right whales that occur inthis region (NOAA, 2008). The likelihood of spillsand other impacts to habitat from passing shipscan be minimized through improved navigationand port facilities.

Because the potential impacts of noise havebecome a concern only recently, research is neededto better define these impacts and to develop ap-proaches to minimize the impacts that are docu-mented.

The U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Un-dersea Test and EvaluationCenter (AUTEC) range in theBahamas, where a NOAA-led international team,funded primarily by the U.S.Navy, is studying the behav-ioral responses and relativesensitivities of several ma-rine mammals to sonar(Boyd, et al., 2008). Thishigh-altitude image showsAndros Island (center) sur-rounded by shallow (tur-quoise) water to the left sideand very deep water to theright (a trench called Tongueof the Ocean). The AUTECrange is in the middle of thetrench, and has 82 hydro-phones deployed over 1,554km2 (600 mi2) of the seafloor.

NA

SA

2 8

CONCLUSIONS

Managing habitat through conservation andprotection is critical because of the living marineresources that habitat supports. An effective pro-gram requires components that protect and con-serve remaining habitat, restore damaged or losthabitat, and build or enhance habitat where thereare opportunities to do so. These actions requirethe engagement and support of an informed citi-zenry and government agencies with habitat-conservation mandates and the resources neededto carry them out.

Scientific information and the scientists thatgenerate it are key to effectively managing habi-tat. Understanding the relationships between spe-cies and habitats, knowing where and how muchhabitat exists, and rigorously monitoring and as-sessing its condition can provide the scientific ba-sis for managing habitat. However, this informa-tion can only be effective in informing publicpolicy when it is communicated to resource man-agers, stakeholders, and the public in a timelymanner and in forms that are appropriate to thespecific audiences.

To prevent further impacts from habitat deg-radation, fragmentation, and loss, the habitats thatremain can be conserved and/or protected throughlegislation and vigorous enforcement. Althoughmore than 1,000 areas within U.S. waters aregranted some level of special protection by Fed-eral or state governments, only about 1% of theocean within U.S. jurisdiction qualifies as a ma-rine protected area, and only about 10% of thatcarries the highest level of protection, where fish-ing and other extractive activities are precluded.Clearly there is the potential to protect more area,and to provide high-priority areas with a greaterlevel of protection. However, conserving and pro-tecting habitat does not have to be accomplishedonly by setting aside large areas of habitat. Othermanagement options also exist, such as fisherytime/area closures, avoiding certain activities insensitive areas (e.g. banning bottom trawling overdeep-coral beds, but allowing fishing using othergears that do not contact the bottom), and devel-oping alternative methods or new technologies thatreduce or eliminate the most deleterious impacts.

Creating or restoring habitat is usually muchmore expensive and less effective than conserving

© J

ian

gan

g L

uo

, Un

iver

sity

of

Mia

mi

Left: Steller sea lions hauledout on Benjamin Island,near Juneau, Alaska.

Right: Mangrove roots pro-vide essential habitat formany species, such as in thismangrove habitat at ElliottKey in Biscayne Bay, Florida.

NM

FS

2 9

habitat that already exists and is functioning. Thescience of creating and restoring habitats is rela-tively new, so more research is needed to developand evaluate restoration methods. When habitatis created or restored, it should be done with avalid scientific purpose and experimental design,so that effectiveness can be evaluated throughmonitoring and additional corrective actions un-dertaken if they prove necessary. To ensure resto-ration success, NOAA’s Restoration Center em-ploys technical staff to improve project design,advance restoration techniques, and use ongoingscientific monitoring to evaluate restorationprojects and assure efficient use of restorationfunds.

This Policymakers’ Summary, and the completeOur Living Oceans: Habitat report from which itis derived, provide a comprehensive overview of thehabitat issues that are affecting the living marine re-sources of the United States, and the state of the sci-entific information on these issues. The intent is toprovide scientifically valid information in a formthat can be used not only by scientists, but also bystakeholders, policymakers, students, and the gen-eral public.

The overall message in these reports is mixed.The United States still possesses a considerableamount of functioning habitat, which supportssubstantial harvests of fishery resources and popu-lations of protected species. However, there hasbeen substantial loss and degradation of habitatin many areas, especially where human activitiesoccur. The cumulative impacts of these losses can-not readily be quantified, but they are undoubt-edly considerable, especially on urbanized water-sheds, estuaries, and coasts.

In order that our Nation can continue to ben-efit from abundant living marine resources, oursociety needs to place a high priority on manag-ing habitat. Human populations and economic ac-tivities will continue to expand, placing ever-in-creasing demands on the environment and thehabitats it contains. Gaps in the relevant scientificinformation must be filled, and the informationcommunicated, such that our decisionmakers canbe appropriately informed as policy is developedand implemented. The National Marine FisheriesService has developed the Our Living Oceans se-ries of reports to contribute to these vital processes.

Bio

geo

gra

ph

y T

eam

, CC

MA

, NO

S, N

OA

A

Left: Coral reef and fish inthe Pacific Islands.

Right: Southeast Alaska wet-land and estuarine habitatsupports many fish speciesat critial times in their lifecycles.

Man

dy

Lin

deb

erg

, NM

FS

3 0

REFERENCES CITED

AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Barnes, P. and J. Thomas. 2002. Symposium onthe effects of fishing activities on benthic habi-tats: linking geology, biology, socioeconomics, andmanagement. Convened by P. Barnes, U.S. Geo-logical Survey, Washington, DC, and J. Thomas,NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, November 2002.Internet site (accessed January 2009)—http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/bh2002/.

Boyd, I., P. Tyack, D. Claridge, C. Clark, D.Moretti, and B. Southall. 2008. Effects of soundexposure on the behaviour of toothed whales:behavioural response study. Internet site (accessedJanuary 2009)—http://www.lib.noaa.gov/about/news/Southall_121808.pdf.

Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones,K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J. Woerner. 2007.Effects of nutrient enrichment in the Nation’s es-tuaries: a decade of change. NOAA Coastal OceanProgram Decision Analysis Series No. 26, 328 p.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008. Chesapeake Bay2007 health & restoration assessment. U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, MD.Internet site (accessed January 2009)—http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_26038.pdf.

Dahl, T. E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands inthe conterminous United States 1998 to 2004.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-life Service, Washington, DC, 112 p. Internet site(accessed January 2009)—http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/status_trends/national_reports/trends_2005_report.pdf.

DOC. 2006. Gutierrez announces Klamath River“fishery resource disaster,” immediate steps to helpfishing communities. Press release, U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, Washington, DC, 3 p.Internet site (accessed January 2009)—http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/disasters/klamath/Press%20Release%20(22).pdf.

Emmett, R., R. Llanso, J. Newton, R. Thom, M.Hornberger, C. Morgan, C. Levings, A. Copping,and P. Fishman. 2000. Geographic signatures ofNorth American west coast estuaries. Estuaries23(6):765–792.

EPA. 2008a. National Coastal Condition ReportIII. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof Research and Development, Office of Water,Washington, DC. EPA/842-R-08-002, 300 p.Internet site (accessed May 2009)—http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr3/downloads.html.

EPA. 2008b. Invasive species. U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Internetsite (accessed January 2009)—http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/.

EPA. 2008c. More information on marine debrisabatement. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC. Internet site (accessedJanuary 2009)—http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/debris/moreinfo.html.

Heinz Center. 2002. Issues in ecology. The stateof the Nation’s ecosystems. The H. John HeinzIII Center for Science, Economics and theEnvironment, Washington, DC. Internet site(accessed January 2009)—http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/.

IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis re-port. A contribution of Working Groups I, II, andIII to the fourth assessment report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Me-teorological Organization, Geneva, 104 p. Internetsite (accessed January 2009)—http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

Jensen, A. S., and G. K. Silber. 2003. Large whalestrike database. U.S. Department of CommerceNOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25,37 p.

Link, J., F. Almeida, P. Valentine, P. Auster, R. Reid,and J. Vitaliano. 2005. The effect of area closureson Georges Bank. In P. W. Barnes and J. P. Thomas

3 1

(editors), Benthic habitats and the effects offishing, p. 345–368. American Fisheries SocietySymposium 41, Bethesda, MD.

Lumsden, S. E., T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner,and G. Dorr (editors). 2007. The state of deepcoral ecosystems of the United States. NOAATechnical Memorandum CRCP-3, 365 p. Internetsite (accessed May 2009)—http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/Deep%20Coral%20Report%202007.pdf.

NASA. 2007. ‘Remarkable’ drop in Arctic sea iceraises questions. National Aeronautics and SpaceAgency, Washington, DC. Internet site (accessedJanuary 2009)—http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_minimum.html.

National Snow and Ice Data Center. 2007. Arcticsea ice news; fall 2007. National Snow and IceData Center, University of Colorado, Boulder,CO. Internet site (accessed January 2009)—http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007.html#1October.

NEFSC. 2006. Invasive sea squirts persist onGeorges Bank. Northeast Fisheries Science Center,Woods Hole, MA. Internet site (accessed May2009)—http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/2006/nr0613.htm.

NMFS. 2007. Report to Congress on the Impactof Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on com-mercial and recreational fishery habitat of Ala-bama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring,MD, 201 p.

NMFS. 2008. Fish passage in the United States:making way for the Nation’s migrating fish. Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD,6 p. Internet site (accessed January 2009)—http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/fishpassage08.pdf.

NOAA. 2006. A paleo perspective on global warm-ing; the penultimate interglacial period. NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration,NESDIS, NCDC, Ashville, NC. Internet site (ac-

cessed January 2009)—http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/interglacial.html.

NOAA. 2008. Ships must slow down to protectNorth Atlantic right whales. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.Internet site (accessed January 2009)—http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081208_shipstrike.html.

NOAA. 2009. Marine Debris. National OceanService, Office of Response and Restoration.Internet site (accessed May 2009)—http://marinedebris.noaa.gov.

NRC. 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. NationalResearch Council, National Academy Press, Wash-ington DC, 164 p. Internet site (accessed January2009)—http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6032.

NRC. 2004. Non-native oysters in the ChesapeakeBay. National Research Council, National Acad-emy Press, Washington DC, 344 p. Internet site(accessed January 2009)—http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10796.

Peterson, C. H., S. D. Rice, J. W. Short, D. Esler,J. L., Bodkin, B. E. Ballachey, and D. B. Irons.2003. Longterm ecosystem response to the ExxonValdez oil spill. Science 302:2082–2086.

PSMFC. 2006. Map of accessible and blockedanadromous fish habitat in the Columbia Riverbasin. StreamNet Project, Pacific States MarineFisheries Commission, Portland, OR.

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman,Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. “the deadzone.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systemat-ics 33:235–263.

Roni, P. (editor). 2005. Monitoring stream andwatershed restoration. American Fisheries Society,Bethesda, MD, 350 p.

Steadman, S., and T. E. Dahl. 2008. Status andtrends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of theeastern United States, 1998 to 2004. National

3 2

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 32p. Internet site (accessed May 2009)—http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/pdf/wetlands/WetlandsReport_012909.pdf.

The Ocean Conservancy. 2002. Health of theoceans. Washington, DC, 80 p. Internet site (ac-cessed January 2009)— http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/healthOceans.pdf.

U.S. Navy. 2006. Active military sonar and ma-rine mammals: events and references. U.S. Navy.

Internet site (accessed January 2009)—http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sonar_mammal.htm.

White House. 2009. President Bush discusses con-servation and the environment. Internet site (ac-cessed January 2009)—http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090106-9.html.

Zedler, J. B., J. C. Callaway, and G. Sullivan. 2001.Declining biodiversity: why species matter andhow their functions might be restored in Califor-nia tidal marshes. BioScience 51:1005–1017.