Information Needs to Assess Essential Fish Habitat Impacts From Offshore Aquaculture Projects Along the U.S. Atlantic Coast From New England Through the Mid-Atlantic

Purpose and Overview

This technical assistance document is designed to aid federal action agencies (e.g. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and project proponents in the development of the assessments of the effects of proposed offshore aquaculture activities on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in NOAA Fisheries’ Greater Atlantic Region (GAR) (Maine - Virginia). 

This document provides an outline of the information and analysis needed to support a robust assessment of the potential effects of a proposed offshore aquaculture development project on EFH in the GAR. This information is necessary for federal action agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on the potential project impacts to EFH, federally managed species, their prey, and other resources under NOAA Fisheries’ purview. This technical assistant document is not project specific and may not include all of the information needed for all projects. For each project, we expect that any description of baseline information or analysis of the potential effects of any action will be comprehensive and based on the best available scientific information. 

Authority

In the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), Congress recognized that one of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats.  Congress also determined that habitat considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the United States. As a result, one of the purposes of the MSA is to promote the protection of EFH in the review of projects conducted under federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat. The MSA requires federal action agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce, through NOAA Fisheries, with respect to “any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act,” 16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(2). The EFH provisions of the MSA can be found on: pages 33-41 of the Act. 

The most-up-to-date EFH designations can be accessed using our EFH Mapper and/or downloaded from the EFH Mapper Data Inventory. The HAPC designations can also be viewed, or linked to, within the EFH Mapper and shapefiles downloaded by selecting the “Habitat Areas of Particular Concern - (HAPC)” from the EFH Mapper Data Inventory. 

In addition to the EFH provisions of the MSA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA),  requires that all federal action agencies consult with us (and any state counterpart) whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or modified for any purpose by any federal action agency. The FWCA also requires that those federal agencies consider the effects that these projects would have on fish and wildlife, prevent the loss of and damage to [fish and] wildlife resources, and provide for the development and improvement of those resources (16 U.S.C. 662(a)). The FWCA also established fish and wildlife conservation as a coequal purpose or objective of federally funded or permitted water resource development projects or proposals. Requirements of the FWCA are typically met through the assessment of impacts to all habitats and species (federally- and non-federally managed species) under our purview, in addition to the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures to prevent the loss of and damage to [fish and] wildlife resources, and mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts. In practice, and in consideration of the EFH consultation, the EFH assessment typically includes information relevant to, and required by, the FWCA, though this information can be contained in other documents.

Contact Information

For information related to the EFH or FWCA consultations within GAR, contact: 

• Karen.Greene@noaa.gov, Mid-Atlantic Branch Chief/Regional EFH Coordinator Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Habitat and Ecosystem Services Division

EFH Assessments Information Needs 

The EFH assessment should address the following information (excerpts from 50 CFR 600.920(e)). This includes both the mandatory content and additional information necessary to ensure a complete EFH assessment for offshore aquaculture project consultations.

Preparation Requirement 

For any federal action that may adversely affect EFH, federal action agencies must provide NOAA Fisheries with a written assessment of the effects of that action on EFH. Adverse effect is defined as any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.

Level of Detail 

The EFH assessment should include a level of detail commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the potential adverse effects of the action. For example, for relatively simple actions involving minor adverse effects on EFH, the assessment may be very brief. Actions that may pose a more serious threat to EFH warrant a correspondingly more detailed EFH assessment. The lead federal action agency should coordinate with GARFO Habitat and Ecosystem Services Division (HESD) biologists to determine the level of detail needed to fully evaluate all of the direct, indirect, individual, and cumulative effects of the proposed action. 

Mandatory Content 

This detailed description should include activities, frequency, duration, location, and intensity and should reflect the best available information on the activities and how the activities are likely to be carried out (see Appendix A for more detail).

The assessment must contain: 

• A description of the action(s).
• An analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action(s) on EFH and the managed species. 
• The federal action agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action(s) on EFH.
• Proposed mitigation, if applicable.  

Additional Information

If appropriate based on the potential effects, the assessment should also include (see Appendix A for more detail): 

• The results of an on-site inspection to evaluate the habitat and the site specific effects of the project. 
• The views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected. 
• A review of pertinent literature and related information. 
• An analysis of alternatives to the action. Such analysis should include alternatives that could avoid or minimize adverse effects on EFH. 
• Other relevant information.

Baseline Habitat Information 

The assessment should provide detailed maps showing the extent and types of habitats within the project area. We recommend that habitat within the project area be mapped consistent with the most-up-to-date version of our “Recommendations for Mapping Fish Habitat.” Because these mapping recommendations have been developed for offshore wind projects, the agency should consult HESD staff prior to the planning and initiation of acoustic and benthic surveys to ensure appropriate mapping methods, data analysis procedures, and habitat classification methods are used to support the EFH consultation. HESD will be working to develop offshore aquaculture specific mapping recommendations which will be added to the GAR Aquaculture website when completed. 

Analysis of Alternatives to the Action 

This analysis should include alternatives that could avoid or minimize adverse effects on EFH. An alternatives analysis should consider alternate siting locations, gear types, and operating and maintenance procedures that may be employed to minimize adverse effects to EFH.  

Assessment of Impacts Within the Scope of the Project Area 

For the purposes of the EFH assessment, the analysis of effects should focus on impacts that reduce the quality and/or quantity of the habitat or result in conversion to a different habitat type for all life stages of species with designated EFH within the action area. Simply stating that fish will move away or that the project will only affect a small percentage of the overall population is not a sufficient analysis of the effects of an action on EFH. Also, since the intent of the EFH consultation is to evaluate the direct, indirect, individual and cumulative effects of a particular federal action on EFH and to identify options to avoid, minimize or offset the adverse effects of that action, is it not appropriate to conclude that an impact is minimal just because the area affected is a small percentage of the total area of EFH designated. The focus of the consultation is to reduce impacts resulting from the activities evaluated in the assessment. Similarly, a large area of distribution or range of the fish species is also not an appropriate rationale for concluding the impacts of a particular project are minimal. 

The impact analyses should include the area of direct and indirect impacts of each project component and/or activity and should be assessed by habitat type. For example, anchoring devices could result in direct impacts, such as the loss of benthic habitat under the anchoring device or the sweep of the anchor chain, as well as indirect impacts through sediment resuspension and deposition that may occur during installation and retrieval. As a result, the EFH assessment for anchoring devices should focus on the habitats and species that will be directly impacted by anchor placement and the habitats and species (including prey) that will be indirectly impacted from sediment resuspension and deposition. The habitats and species that occur outside of the areas that will be directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed anchoring devices should not be considered in the evaluation and assessment of the effects of the identified adverse impacts to EFH.  While the NEPA impact analyses may focus on the effects of potential habitat impacts (e.g., negligible, minor, etc) in relation to the extent of available habitat outside the immediate project impact area, such an analysis is not consistent with the EFH regulations and is not appropriate for the EFH consultation. The EFH impact analyses should be based upon the full spatial extent of the effect of the project component or activity and assessed, as appropriate, for each habitat type occurring within the identified impact area.   

Assessment of Impacts to Habitat Types and Their Use by Federally-Managed Species 

The EFH assessment should evaluate how specific project activities could affect specific benthic habitat types (e.g., depths and substrate types) designated as EFH for managed fish and invertebrate species within the project area and what measures are being taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. In addition, the evaluation of pelagic habitat impacts should include an assessment of the project on the acoustic environment, existing hydrodynamics and primary productivity in the project area, and water quality, including effluent (e.g. waste, feed, medications) discharges. The impact evaluation should consider the use of designated EFH by sensitive life history stages of managed fish and invertebrate species.

It is not necessary to do this analysis  for each individual species and life history stage, but instead for groups of species and/or life history stages that share the same habitat type; it should also include primary prey species consumed by managed fish and invertebrate species. However, particular habitats (e.g. SAV and rocky habitats), species (e.g. Atlantic cod, summer flounder) and life history stages (e.g. spawning, eggs, juveniles) that may be more susceptible to project impacts should be highlighted and a focus of the analysis. Include an evaluation of the degree of habitat vulnerability to specific project activities and pay special attention to any activities that could affect any HAPCs designated within or adjacent to the project area. 

Quality and Sources of Information 

The bibliography should cite and reference all scientific publications and information sources used to support all analyses and conclusions. The EFH assessment should be based on the best available scientific information.

Appendix A 

For all descriptions, include as much detail as possible including relevant mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements (if available) that are part of the proposed action. The EFH Assessment should incorporate each letter item below (i.e. considered as a checklist of information to be included in the assessment). Coordination with HESD staff is strongly encouraged prior to any data collection efforts.

EFH Baseline Information

• Provide detailed maps delineating habitat types within the project area. The habitat maps should delineate soft sediment habitats, complex habitats, and benthic features, consistent with NOAA Fisheries’ Recommendations for Mapping Fish Habitat. The delineations should be derived from acoustic survey and benthic sampling data as described in the fish habitat mapping recommendations. 
  • • Please note that the Recommendations for Mapping Fish Habitat were developed for offshore wind projects. Coordinate with HESD staff on the scope of work for any sampling and survey efforts prior to their implementation to ensure the data collected is appropriate for the impact evaluation. Offshore aquaculture specific mapping recommendations are under development.   

• Identify all HAPCs (e.g., summer flounder, inshore juvenile Atlantic cod, sandbar shark, etc.) in the project area and delineate areas consistent with the HAPC designations as appropriate. 
• Identify and map areas of sensitive habitats and habitat features (e.g., rocky habitats, structure-forming taxa, submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds, sand ridge complexes, etc.).  
• Provide a detailed description of habitat mapping methodology, including explanations of how survey data were collected and analyzed, and how maps were developed with reference to NOAA Fisheries Recommendations for Mapping Fish Habitat. Please note that if sub-bottom profiling will be conducted during the collection of baseline habitat data, contact NOAA Fisheries to determine consultation requirements prior to initiating the survey.  
• Include a list of all designated EFH in the project area by species and life history stages, with brief summaries of the habitat requirements, seasonal occurrence, prey species, spawning behavior, etc. as they pertain to the proposed project (see EFH text descriptions available in the EFH Mapper and other relevant information sources). 

Project Information

Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including a description of each project component and/or activity for all elements of the project under consideration.

• All potential structures (e.g. nets, pens, anchors, chains, lines, buoys, etc.) to be installed.  
• The proposed number and layout of structures to be installed. If there is a range in the number of potential structures to be installed, all potential layout alternatives should be considered and presented. 
• Detailed information on all potential site preparation (e.g. seafloor clearing/sweeping, dredging, etc.), if applicable. 
• Detailed information on proposed construction and installation activities, including the time of year and duration of construction and installation.  
• Detailed information on proposed operation and maintenance of all project components, including both the gear and cultured species. This information should detail how the gear will be operated during normal conditions, as well as any proposed procedures for extreme weather or inactive (e.g. “offseason”) periods.  Specifics on the proposed species to be cultured, feeding operations, potential medications, response to accidental releases, and species specific culture requirement should be provided.  
• Vessel activity, during both construction and operations, in the project area should be fully described. This should include the types of vessels, the duration of vessel activity, timing of vessel activity (i.e. time of year vessels will be accessing the site, and the time of day), and the location and extent of vessel anchoring.
• Should the proposed aquaculture project require a new port and/or expansion or modification of an existing port facility, detailed project information on the proposed new, expanded, or modified port should be provided.  
• Any other in-water activities or components not listed above should be fully described.

EFH Impact Assessment

When analyzing the potential impacts to EFH for each of the relevant project activities listed above, consider the following items for each project component and activity. Consider these items for all federally managed species and life stages with EFH designated in the project area, adding other content as appropriate.  

• Identify and analyze potential effects of each project component and activity on specific habitat types, species, and/or species groups within project impact areas. This should include an evaluation of all potential effects of a project component or activity on designated EFH, inclusive of direct (e.g. gear placement) and indirect (e.g. underwater noise) effects.  
• Evaluate and assess potential impacts to designated EFH habitat types and/or features most vulnerable from each project component and activity. This evaluation should consider the proximity of each project component and activity to vulnerable habitats and features (e.g., rocky habitats, structure-forming taxa, submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds, sand ridges, etc.) identified in the project area.
• Evaluate and assess potential impacts to all identified HAPCs (e.g., inshore juvenile Atlantic cod, sand tiger shark, sandbar shark, summer flounder) in the project area and all measures proposed to avoid, minimize and mitigate such impacts. 
• Identify the expected duration and spatial extent of effluent discharge resulting from facility operations, and the resuspended sediments and sediment deposition that may occur as a result of gear deployment, modifications, and retrieval, and the expected impacts to pelagic and benthic resources and habitats within and adjacent to proposed gear installation locations. This analysis should be completed for each potential gear layout and installation method that may be used. 
• Evaluate impacts to managed fish and invertebrate species and prey resulting from habitat loss and conversion (e.g., potential aggregating effect of gear or anchor systems).
• Evaluate the potential impacts to existing substrates and habitats (e.g., benthic community disturbances and losses as a result of gear placement in pelagic and benthic habitats, chain scour, equipment and vessel anchors; effluent discharge impacts to pelagic and seafloor habitats; sediment resuspension from gear/seafloor interactions and deposition of sediments into adjacent habitats, etc.).
• Evaluate the potential for expansion and/or introduction of invasive species, including expansions or introductions that could occur because of escapement, or as a result of alteration of the seafloor and the installation of novel substrates and materials (e.g., gear, chain, anchors).
• Evaluation of acoustic effects, including an assessment of the spatial extent of the effects and the impacts that may occur to managed fish and invertebrate species during both construction (e.g. gear installation, vessel operations, etc.) and operations (e.g. gear operations, cultured species, species attracted to gear, vessel operations, etc.) of the project. This assessment should include an evaluation of potential impacts to spawning behavior and settlement with consideration of the proposed time of year schedule to relevant life history stages of managed fish and invertebrate species and their prey. The assessment should provide a general analysis of potential impacts to EFH from particle motion based on the best available science (understanding standard thresholds have not yet been established). The assessment of effects from sound pressure should be based upon the best available science to determine the appropriate thresholds to incorporate into the evaluation. Currently, NOAA Fisheries considers the potential for behavioral disturbance with exposure to noise greater than 150 dB re 1 uPa RMS and utilizes the FHWG (2008)¹ interim criteria for injury associated with impact pile driving. However, Popper et al. 2014² ANSI guidelines are widely used and recognized as the best available science and we recommend including both sets of criteria for acoustic modeling. Further, species-specific information based upon the best available science should be included when available. Species-specific impact evaluations should be provided for species that may be more sensitive to acoustic impacts (e.g. Atlantic cod), as well as invertebrate species that are not addressed in either FHWG (2008) or Popper et al. (2014).   
• Provide an evaluation of potential hydrodynamic impacts from the presence of gear in the water column (e.g. floating, mid-water, etc.) and/or in contact with the seafloor (e.g. bottom-cages, anchors, chains, etc.). Direct and indirect impacts of hydrodynamic changes to seafloor sediments (e.g. sediment resuspension) should be evaluated for both pelagic impacts (e.g. turbidity) as well as benthic impacts (e.g. scouring, sediment deposition). Consider the potential effects to egg/larval distribution patterns, primary production, and prey distribution. 
• An evaluation of the potential impacts to water quality including potential resuspension of contaminated material from seafloor disturbance. Also, evaluate impacts to benthic EFH from redeposition of contaminants into adjacent areas. 

[1] FHWG 2008.

[2] Popper, A. N., Hawkins, A. D., Fay, R. R., Mann, D. A., Bartol, S., Carlson, T. J., and Løkkeborg, S. (2014). Sound exposure guidelines. In ASA S3/SC1. 4 TR-2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI (pp. 33-51). Springer, Cham.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

• For all identified adverse impacts to EFH for managed fish and invertebrate species and their prey, provide detailed information on avoidance and minimization measures that will be employed. This includes an evaluation of alternate locations that may have less of an adverse effect on EFH. This evaluation should be done in sequence with alternatives that avoid adverse impacts, including siting alternatives, being evaluated first followed by the minimization of adverse impacts.
• Evaluate and assess the effectiveness of all proposed measures that will be included to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to specific habitat types, species or species groups, and prey species.
• Provide relevant monitoring plans with the EFH assessment. This should include any proposed monitoring over the life of the project, including: 1) construction related monitoring plans (e.g. acoustic monitoring, turbidity monitoring, etc.); 2) operational monitoring plans (e.g. effluent discharge monitoring, gear inspection, cultured species monitoring, etc.); and 3) long-term habitat monitoring (e.g. benthic monitoring plans). A benthic monitoring plan should clearly demonstrate that scientifically robust data, capable of detecting changes in the community structure of benthic fauna and juvenile fish species, will be collected and evaluated. Provide any additional proposed fisheries or environmental monitoring plans.

Mitigation

• In cases where a particular project component or activity is expected to have more than a minimal impact to a given habitat type, describe and present any proposed compensatory mitigation to offset such impacts.
• Explain how the proposed compensatory mitigation is expected to offset the impacts to managed fish and invertebrate species EFH. 
• Justify conclusions using the best available scientific information. 

Federal Action Agency Determination 

• Identify project activities that are expected to have negligible, minimal, or more than minimal adverse impacts to specific habitat types, as short-term (< 2 years), long-term (2 years to < life of the project), or permanent effects (life of the project).  As described above, this evaluation and determination must be based upon the area of project impact (i.e. the habitat within the area affected by a specific project component and/or activity) and should not consider the extent of similar habitat adjacent to or outside the area of impact.   
• Justify determination using the best available scientific information.