Draft National Artificial Reef Plan Revision February 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments iv Preface v Executive Summary vi INTRODUCTION 1 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAMS 3 ROLES 4 Federal 4 Department of Interior 5 Department of Commerce 5 Department of Defense 7 The Department of Transportation 7 The Environmental Protection Agency 8 Regional Fishery Management Councils 9 State 9 State Natural Resource Agencies 9 Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions 11 Local Governments (County and Municipal) 11 Private 12 GUIDELINES 12 Siting 12 Purpose 13 Social and Economic Considerations 17 Environmental Considerations 19 Biological Considerations 21 Artificial Reef Materials and Design 22 Materials Criteria 22 Types of Materials 23 Transfer of Construction Materials 25 Design Criteria 26 Regulatory Requirements 28 Corps of Engineers 28 Coast Guard 28 Environmental Protection Agency 29 National Marine Fisheries Service 29 Regional Fishery Management Councils 30 States and Local Governments 30 Construction 30 Management 32 General 32 Monitoring 34 Maintenance 37 Liability 37 Plan and Permit Stage 38 Construction Stage 38 Monitoring Stage 39 General Observations 39 SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND RESEARCH NEEDS 40 Synopsis of Information 40 Research Needs 40 Estuarine Applications 41 Understanding Reef Community Ecology 41 Reef Population Life Histories 41 Bioengineering and Design 41 Harvest Analysis 41 Reef Population Dynamics 42 Socioeconomics 42 Community Production 42 Reef Data Acquisition and Distribution 42 Mitigation 43 ABBREVIATIONS 44 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While the National Artificial Reef Plan of 1985 (Plan) was compiled by a small team of devoted National Marine Fisheries Service scientists, namely Richard Stone, Ron Schmied, and Frank Steimle, the revision of the Plan has been an almost Herculean effort, incorporating the combined knowledge of literally dozens of scientists, program managers and users from the federal, state, local, and private sectors. Though the Plan forms the genesis, this revision has grown out of a series of workshops and meetings which were sponsored by the Atlantic States (ASMFC) and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions (GSMFC) with funding support from the National Marine Fisheries Service's Office of Intergovernmental and Recreational Fisheries. The workshops were developed to meet an expressed priority need on the part of artificial reef program managers for updated information. While this was a drafting effort to which many people contributed, Richard Christian, formerly of the ASMFC and currently with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ron Lukens and Nancy Marcellus of the GSMFC and the members of the respective Artificial Reef Technical Committees provided invaluable assistance in this endeavor. Sincere gratitude is given to the three interstate marine fisheries commissions and their member states for working cooperatively with the National Marine Fisheries Service to revise the National Artificial Reef Plan. Bill Price, Virginia Fay, and Michael Bailey of the National Marine Fisheries Service contributed considerably. Finally, thanks are given to the many contributors to the document, represented by many hours of research and writing. PREFACE The original National Artificial Reef Plan (Plan) was published in 1985. On page 1 of that document, in the Introduction, the last sentence of the first paragraph states, "The Plan is intended as a dynamic, working document that will change as new information becomes available." By letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the spring of 1996, the three interstate marine fisheries commissions requested that the NMFS authorize them to engage in revising the Plan. In December 1996, NMFS responded, providing the commissions the authority to develop draft recommendations for full plan revision. The commissions conducted a number of meetings which involved representatives from nearly every state artificial reef program, staff members from the three commissions, staff of the Minerals Management Service, and NMFS staff. During the course of this extensive series of meetings draft language was formulated and compiled into the document "Coastal Artificial Reef Planning Guide" which was then jointly published by the three commissions in December 1998. The "Coastal Artificial Reef Planning Guide" was then submitted to NMFS in hopes that it would form the basis for revision of the Plan. The rationale for the interstate marine fisheries commissions to assume a lead role in revising the Plan is that state artificial reef management programs, which typically interact through the interstate marine fisheries commissions, have been the most visible in artificial reef development, and, therefore, their programs are more integrally tied to the guidance provided in the Plan. It is in the spirit of regional and national cooperation and coordination of activities that the state artificial reef programs are working in conjunction with NMFS to apply their knowledge and experience in revising the Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Artificial Reef Plan (Plan) is not meant to be a textbook or a policy manual, but rather a guide for artificial reef program managers and policy makers regarding how to access and understand the many facets of artificial reef development and use. The Plan was developed by the Secretary of Commerce under direction of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (Act). The Plan was designed to be a dynamic working document that would be updated as new information became available. Prior to 1984, many coastal states had well-developed programs directed at enhancing fisheries and fish habitat with man-made reef structures. Following approval of the Plan in 1985, these states were joined with others in implementing its recommendations. Many have pursued aggressive construction programs under guidance of the Plan and according to specific requirements in the Act. In addition, some state agencies have been less active in constructing reefs, but rather have made financial and technical resources available to local governments, private interests, and universities to encourage responsible reef development and research. Approximately half of the coastal state natural resources agencies in the United States have approved plans for construction of man-made fish habitats based on the guidance of the Plan. In developing these plans and implementing individual state programs, these agencies have taken advantage of the coordination function for their respective interstate marine fisheries commissions to share experiences and technologies. The interstate commissions have served to assist coordination of information exchange, and development of coastal and national policies for responsible stewardship of the fisheries affected by man-made reef development activities. The Act designates the Secretaries of Commerce and the Army with lead responsibilities to encourage, regulate, and monitor development of man-made reefs in the navigable waters of the United States. The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for the Plan, which provides guidance on reef development. Under the Act, the Secretary of the Army, when issuing a permit for artificial reefs, shall consult with and consider the views of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and other interested parties; ensure that the provisions for siting, constructing, monitoring, and managing artificial reefs are consistent with established criteria and standards; and ensure that the title to the artificial reef construction material is unambiguous and that responsibility for maintenance and the financial ability to assume liability is clearly established. The coastal states have aggressively pursued implementation of the Act under the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory oversight. The natural resource agencies in two-thirds of the coastal United States hold more than 90 percent of the permits for man-made reef structures. The Corps is a highly decentralized agency that has delegated to its district offices, the authority provided by Federal law for administering the regulatory program. The Act establishes the procedures to be followed by the Corps in issuing permits for artificial reefs. Given the discretion allowed by law, there is no inherent assurance that only responsible reef development will be permitted. The majority of issues addressed by this document stem from this fact. Responsible state agencies have assisted the Corps and other affected agencies in keeping irresponsible activities to a minimum and preserving long-term benefits to associated fisheries. This document follows the format of the 1985 Plan incorporating changes to original text in key areas. A few significant deviations from the format of the Plan of 1985 are contained in this report. The most significant occurs in the section dealing with materials. Materials used to construct man-made reefs are under continuous examination and evaluation by reef developers and environmental regulators. This is especially true for those materials that were originally intended for another purpose. These materials are referred to throughout as "secondary use" materials. This document changes prior nomenclature for such materials previously referred to as "materials of opportunity." Currently, no federal agency provides any form of certification of material against established environmental standards. This document does not explore this issue in detail. Sitting administrations will interpret and clarify such roles under existing statutes. Therefore, relevant statutes are cited in applicable sections. Interpretation of these statutes has been left to the respective agencies. Several critical issues of national importance provide the focus for much of the debate regarding man-made reef activities. These include the permit programs of the Corps, materials criteria, liability, research and evaluation, site location, and the roles of affected federal agencies and the regional fisheries management councils. Fishery management councils established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act have additional responsibilities not addressed herein that may result from their role in conserving essential fish habitat. One of the main areas of emphasis was to include language to reiterate the importance of man-made structures as a fisheries management tool. The basic precept to employ reefs as management tools is for the states to have at least an option of first denial to hold permits for any proposed project. Such governmental fisheries management agencies can demonstrate long term commitment and responsibility to the resource and resource users. These agencies are critical to establishing and maintaining compatibility with fishery management objectives for affected species. The states also can demonstrate an ability to assume liability for the projected life of the structure not just for the duration of the permit. There has not been extensive use of man-made reefs in mitigation projects. However, concerns still exist regarding such applications among many reef managers. Although some mitigation projects have successfully incorporated man-made reef structures into project objectives, extreme caution should be exercised in such instances. There is no general acceptance of the utility of man-made structures in mitigation projects. Establishment of baseline evaluation and monitoring programs remains an issue. Recommendations for evaluation and monitoring should include assessments of physical attributes of the reef structure as well as biological attributes of species assemblages, among others. Such assessments should be measured against the objectives established for building the reef and may require that such objectives be included in permits. INTRODUCTION The National Fishing Enhancement Act (Act) of 1984 (Title II of PL 98-623) directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop and publish a long-term National Artificial Reef Plan (Plan) to promote and facilitate responsible and effective artificial reef use based on the best scientific information available. As defined in Section 206 of the Act, the term artificial reef refers to ". . . a structure which is constructed or placed in waters covered under this title for the purpose of enhancing fishery resources and commercial and recreational fishing opportunities." The term "waters" is defined as ". . . the navigable waters of the United States and the waters superjacent to the outer continental shelf as defined in Section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act . . . to the extent such waters exist in or are adjacent to any State." So defined, the Act does not exclude freshwater. However, the Plan focuses on artificial reefs in marine and estuarine environments. The Plan was implemented in 1985 to provide guidance on various aspects of artificial reef use, including types of construction materials and planning, siting, designing, and managing of artificial reefs. It included a review of information sources and discussed research needs that had been identified at that time. Other issues, such as liability and mitigation, also were introduced. These issues were to be addressed in more detail by groups of knowledgeable individuals from the federal, state, university, and private sectors. As such, the Plan is intended to serve as a dynamic, working document to be revised and updated periodically. This revision incorporates new language developed from input received from relevant federal and state agencies, the interstate marine fisheries commissions (IMFCs), regional fishery management councils (FMCs), recreational and commercial fishing interests, and the general public. Much of the original text and format has been maintained where appropriate and pertinent to current issues, as well as to the current state of marine artificial reef development, management, and regulation in the United States. The 1985 document was general in scope and provided a framework for regional, state, and local planners to develop more detailed, site-specific artificial reef plans sensitive to highly variable local needs and conditions. Coastal states have used the Plan to develop state-specific plans under the cooperative leadership of state agencies and IMFCs that are responsible for fisheries management and development. Those plans focus on specific criteria for reef development and management in their geographic areas. Increasing demands on fish stocks by both commercial and recreational fishermen and losses of benthic habitat due to development and pollution, have had substantial effects on many reef-associated fish species. Properly constructed, and strategically sited artificial reefs can enhance fish habitat, provide more access to quality fishing grounds, benefit fishermen and the economies of shore communities, increase total fish biomass within a given area, and provide managers with another option for conserving, managing and/or developing fishery resources. Artificial reefs have been used for centuries to enhance fishery resources and fishing opportunities. However, the United States has not systematically developed the potential of this fishery management technique for fishery resource and habitat enhancement. Since development of the Plan in 1985, most efforts in the United States have been focused on enhancing access to fishery resources. Prior to 1985, reef development projects used natural or scrap materials almost exclusively because of their relatively low cost and ready availability. With increased funding assistance through expansion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program, and with increased support from state resource management agencies, most coastal states have been able to plan and execute more effective marine artificial reef development activities. Many coastal states now are taking advantage of more advanced technologies and methodologies to design materials and structures for specific fisheries management objectives. Since adoption of the Plan in 1985, the majority of marine artificial reef development has come under the auspices of individual state programs. During this time, many states and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have established effective local working relationships resulting in better implementation of the provisions of the Act under the guidance of the Plan. In this regard, the Plan has functioned well and generally has been deemed a success. However, growing concerns over the adequacy of the Plan to meet the increased demands being placed on reef developers and fisheries managers mandates revisions based on current information. Development of marine artificial reefs outside of approved state programs or plans, or without the supervision of experienced state developers or state and federal fishery managers, still poses a concern. Of particular concern are reef deployments in or adjacent to waters which are not covered by an approved state-specific artificial reef management plan, or where inadequately staffed and/or trained state or local coastal governments manage reef programs. Improperly located reefs, built out of inappropriate materials or built under inadequately reviewed permits, can pose long-term problems. These are critical factors, which continually need to be revisited in the Plan to clarify the roles for proper state and federal involvement in this national activity and to assure optimal use for artificial reefs in the United States. Although artificial reefs can enhance recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, creating a successful reef entails more than placing miscellaneous materials in ocean, estuarine, or other aquatic environments. Planning, long-term monitoring, and evaluation are necessary in each project to ensure that the anticipated benefits are derived from artificial reefs. Improperly planned, constructed, or managed reefs may be ineffective, may cause conflict among competing user groups at the reef site, may increase the potential to overharvest targeted species, or may damage natural habitats. In such cases the benefits from the planned objectives of these structures may be negated. The Plan provides guidance emphasizing the use of the most recent and best information available. It is intended to address the needs of a wide variety of users, including reef regulators, fishery and environmental managers, prospective donors of reef material, government officials, and the general public. The Plan both addresses criteria specified in Section 204 of the Act, and unspecified criteria considered important by the working groups providing input to this Plan. The consideration and use of these guidelines and criteria will assist reef developers, managers, and regulators in focusing their activities on effective artificial reef programs and performance monitoring. It establishes standard terminology to improve communication between parties interested in reefs, and assists in developing more uniform permitting procedures and clear guidance on materials acceptable for construction of marine artificial reefs. Artificial reef development and management protocols and guidelines contained in the Plan are designed to enhance the use of artificial reefs as fishery management tools. In this regard, artificial reefs should, at a minimum, cause no harm to existing living marine resources and habitats. Optimally, artificial reefs should be developed such that aquatic resources and habitats are enhanced. Objectives of the artificial reef project should match or compliment objectives of state, interstate, and federal fisheries management plans (FMPs) for affected species, and be compatible with other management tools contained in such FMPs (e.g., gear restrictions and area closures). Again, the Plan is intended to serve as a dynamic, working document to be revised and updated periodically. It is critical that the Plan be revisited periodically so that the Plan remains relevant and useful in the future, and future revisions can address developments in technology, relevant scientific research, and any changes in living marine resource management policy. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAMS The purpose of the National Fishing Enhancement Act is to promote and facilitate responsible and effective efforts to establish artificial reefs in the navigable waters of the United States and waters superjacent to the outer continental shelf (as defined in 43 USC, Section 1331) to the extent such waters exist in or are adjacent to any state. Section 203 of the Act establishes the following standards for artificial reef development. Based on the best scientific information available, artificial reefs in waters covered under the Act ".shall be sited and constructed, and subsequently monitored and managed in a manner which will: 1) enhance fishery resources to the maximum extent practicable; 2) facilitate access and utilization by US recreational and commercial fishermen; 3) minimize conflicts among competing uses of waters covered under this title and the resources in such waters; 4) minimize environmental risks and risks to personal health and property; and 5) be consistent with generally accepted principles of international law and shall not create any unreasonable obstruction to navigation." ROLES The roles of all parties involved in artificial reef development, management, and regulation outlined in the original Plan have evolved significantly since 1985. The Corps has formalized their involvement through regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act (see Regulatory Requirements section). Involvement on a state level varies, with most coastal states having some degree of control or oversight of artificial reef development in their waters and adjacent federal waters. Most coastal states also participate in regional communication and coordination concerning essential artificial reef management activities through their respective IMFCs. Partnerships in artificial reef development between state, federal, and private interests have formed over the ensuing years with the states as the lead fishery management agencies and the primary entities in implementation of the Plan. The general consensus of state reef program managers is that artificial reefs are fisheries management tools, and that their use constitutes a fisheries issue that should be addressed accordingly. Federal The Federal role is to provide technical assistance, guidance, permitting and regulations for the proper use of artificial reefs. Such assistance should be compatible with other long-term needs, and should improve coordination and communication between the Federal agencies, states, FMCs, IMFCs, commercial and recreational fishing interests, diving communities and other interested parties. Generally, the Federal role is carried out through the permit process and this National Plan. Additionally, Federal agencies may provide guidelines, services, information, financial aid, and in-kind support for some projects. Federal fisheries agencies may provide some regulatory functions regarding fishing practices on specially designated artificial reefs (e.g., Special Management Zone (SMZ) designation in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico FMP for snappers and groupers, and reef fish, respectively). The Federal government has been involved in artificial reef activities for several decades, both in research and development sponsored by individual agencies, and in reviewing and commenting on reef permit applications (see Act Section 205). There is, however, no federally coordinated program to regulate artificial reef activities except through the permit program of the Corps. The President's Proclamation of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) on March 10, 1983 declared a national interest in living and non-living resources found within 200 nautical miles from shore. The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act) (PL 103-206) of 1993, finds that: ". . . increasing pressure, environmental pollution, and the loss and alteration of habitat have reduced severely, certain Atlantic coastal fishery resources . . . and . . . It is the responsibility of the Federal government to support . . . cooperative interstate management of coastal fisheries." Increased use of fisheries resources is expected in the EEZ, and, undoubtedly, there will be more interest in the use of artificial reefs to enhance these resources and the habitats essential to their proliferation. Five federal entities, the U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), and Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have varying degrees of interest in, and responsibility for, artificial reefs. Department of Interior The DOI has broad authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to protect natural resources. They have specific responsibility to enhance recreational fishery resources under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 (Dingell-Johnson Act) as amended by the Wallop-Breaux Amendment, through the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (PL 98-369, USC 777c). This act provides federal financial assistance to the states for approved studies and projects directed at enhancement of recreational fisheries resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program which provides matching grants to the states to undertake sport fish restoration and boating projects. Money for this program is collected from excise taxes on fishing tackle and motorboat fuels in a user-pays/user-benefits program. The 1984 Wallop-Breaux Amendment to the Sport Fish Restoration Act significantly enhanced the states' abilities to undertake artificial reef programs through increases in financial assistance for such projects. Consequently, this funding has influenced the direction of artificial reef programs nationwide towards a greater focus on enhancement of recreational fisheries and increased fishing opportunities by improving access to the fisheries resources. In addition, the USFWS participates in the cooperative Interstate Fishery Management Program of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to develop and implement fishery management plans under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act. The USFWS has responsibility to provide technical assistance in various consultation processes under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USFWS also provides a critical function in co-chairing, with NMFS, the National Recreational Fisheries Resources Conservation Council. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) The Minerals Management Service is responsible under the OCSLA for leasing federal lands on the United States outer continental shelf (OCS) and regulating the development of oil, gas, and sulfur resources in an orderly manner while properly safeguarding the environment. The MMS supports the appropriate conversion of retired platforms for reefs when such platforms are permitted and designated for use by a state artificial reef program and within areas established for receipt of platforms for the enhancement of habitat for fish and other aquatic life. Department of Commerce The National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (Title II of PL 98-623) directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop and publish a long-term National Artificial Reef Plan to promote and facilitate responsible and effective artificial reef use based on the best scientific information available. The DOC has authority under a number of statutes to protect natural resources and their habitats. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) NMFS carries out responsibilities of the DOC in regard to marine resources of the United States. NMFS, in cooperation with the regional fishery management councils, has responsibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to rebuild, restore, and maintain fishery resources in the EEZ. Also under this act, the NMFS must develop guidelines on essential fish habitat (EFH) in order to assist the FMCs in amending fishery management plans. These guidelines have been developed and EFH has been incorporated in FMC fishery management plans. Under these provisions, artificial reefs may be designated as EFH. NMFS also has general authority under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-304) and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 1989 (PL 99-659) to cooperate with the states in conserving and managing fishery resources in the Territorial Sea. Further, under Section 804 of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Interior, ". . . shall implement a program to support interstate fisheries management efforts . . . [which] . . . shall include habitat conservation . . . " NMFS also has a Restoration Center which has authority to respond to the recommendations from NOS' Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) Program to use funds available from responsible parties involved in a release or spill of hazardous materials into estuarine-marine waters to construct artificial reefs. These artificial reefs are used to restore lost or injured reef-like habitat or reef-related fisheries resources or to compensate for a loss of public access to recreational fishery resources because of the release or spill or from physical damage to natural reef habitat, such as by vessel groundings. The NMFS plays an obvious part in artificial reef development, management, and regulation through its role as the lead agency in the development of the Plan. Additionally, the NMFS has been involved in a general oversight capacity in such activities as providing comments on artificial reef permits, research, establishment of acceptable standards for the transfer, cleaning and preparation of certain reef materials, and in establishment of fishery regulations pertaining specifically to development of artificial reef sites. NMFS also provides scientific input and research into many of the biological considerations in creating and siting artificial reefs as well as studying the feasibility of using artificial reefs to gather information about habitat requirements of marine organisms. The National Ocean Service (NOS) NOS plays a role in mapping the locations of artificial reef sites. With the advent of affordable, and differentially correct, global positioning systems (GPS), many coordinates (primarily using LORAN) of previously marked artificial reef sites have been found to be inaccurate. To ensure that reef sites are accurately plotted, the Corps permit process should unilaterally require the use of differential GPS coordinates that will be forwarded to NOS when they are notified of reef locations. Within NOS, the Office of Response and Restoration (ORR) encompasses the full suite of DOC's capabilities for responding to all types of hazardous events in coastal areas, including oil spills. ORR's mission is to mitigate the negative environmental effects that may be associated with these hazardous events, and to pursue compensation to restore natural resources when they are harmed. ORR has been delegated trustee responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Commerce under the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990. As noted above, the ORR provides recommendations to NMFS on the use of funds from responsible parties to restore lost or injured reef-like habitat or reef related fisheries resources. NOS also has the lead within the Department of Commerce pertaining to the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended. This act establishes a state-federal partnership in the planning, development, and conservation of coastal resources. Department of Defense The DOD is responsible for preserving national security, maintaining navigation, and protecting the public interest in multiple uses of the Nation's waters. The DOD has worked with the states in several programs to provide materials for reef construction. More recently, the ReefEX initiative was developed within several branches of the DOD to facilitate transfer of demilitarized combat vehicles to state artificial reef programs. Although the program is now inactive, the intent was to make other suitable materials available in future program elements. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Corps is responsible for regulating certain activities in waters of the United States under Sections 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). The Corps also has permit authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The Corps regulates work on structures under the RHA and the transport of dredged material under the MPRSA. The Corps has very specific regulatory authorities under the CWA and retains sole responsibility for processing and issuing permits under the CWA. Specifically, the Corps is the lead federal agency responsible for permitting artificial reef development under authority of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984. Pursuant to Section 203 of the Act, the Corps promulgated rules for permitting artificial reef development activities in 33 CFR, Parts 320 through 330, November 13, 1986. Department of Transportation The mission of the DOT is to serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets the vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future. Within the DOT, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ensures safe transportation on America's waterways and protection of the marine environment. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) promotes development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced, United States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation's domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD also seeks to ensure that the United States enjoys adequate shipbuilding and repair service, efficient ports, effective intermodal water and land transportation systems, and reserve shipping capacity in time of national emergency. U.S. Coast Guard The DOT through the US Coast Guard has authority to: 1) promulgate regulations dealing with lights, warning devices, and other public and private aids to navigation on offshore installations; 2) establish safety fairways and traffic separation schemes for safe movement of vessel traffic under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act; 3) establish safety zones around offshore facilities; 4) enforce fishery laws; and 5) monitor and enforce compliance with international conventions and statutes on environmental protection. Maritime Administration The Maritime Administration has been involved in numerous artificial reef construction projects over the past three decades through the donation of surplus ships for reef construction material. The Maritime Programs Appropriations/Authorizations Act of 1972 (PL 98-402) authorized the transfer of surplus World War II Liberty class war vessels designated by the Secretary of Commerce to coastal states as scrap if states would utilize them to construct artificial reefs. Provisions of this act established a formal protocol to remove derelict vessels from MARAD's inactive fleet and transfer them directly to state artificial reef programs. Such vessels have been utilized by many state marine artificial reef programs over the years, and have provided excellent fishing and diving sites. Section 207 of the National Fishing Enhancement Act amends this act so that the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to designate any obsolete vessel as being available for state artificial reef programs. However, some constraints may exist on availability or suitability of military vessels for artificial reef use. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility under MPRSA Section 102 to permit the transportation for dumping of certain materials in ocean waters. Permits issued under Section 102 must comply with criteria established by the EPA. The Corps is responsible for permits that would authorize the transportation for disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. Permits must be evaluated using criteria developed by the EPA in consultation with the Corps. In either case, permits must be evaluated to determine whether the proposed activity would unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. Under the MPRSA, the EPA may prohibit proposed ocean disposal activities that do not comply with the criteria. Under the CWA Section 404(c), the EPA may prohibit the specification of any defined area as a dredged or fill material disposal site in any waters of the United States, including the Territorial Sea. Jurisdiction of the MPRSA and CWA overlap in the Territorial Sea. Although the EPA has not developed specific guidelines for materials used for artificial reef construction, the CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines and MPRSA 102 criteria can be used to determine the acceptability of certain artificial reef materials for ocean placement. As part of their involvement in ReefEX, the EPA developed specific criteria for preparation of de-militarized combat vehicles prior to their use for reef construction. Although specific to the ReefEX program, this marks the first time since enactment of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 that the EPA has provided such guidance or standards for artificial reef materials. Regional Fishery Management Councils Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the regional fishery management councils have the authority to develop Federal fishery management plans and amendments intended to conserve and manage fish and fishery resources in their respective areas of authority. In addition, each FMC must identify and minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. For example, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has recommended, and NMFS has established, special management zones (SMZs) around artificial reefs as well as designating SMZs as essential fish habitat - habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) 50 CFR 600.815(a)(9). The FMCs may determine whether new or existing artificial reefs should be considered EFH. The FMCs also play a role in the EFH consultation process by reviewing specific project proposals and providing comments to state and/or federal agencies whose actions may adversely affect EFH. State State Natural Resource Agencies Virtually all state natural resource agencies with active marine fisheries management and enhancement programs are involved in artificial reef activities. Since implementation of the Plan in 1985, most state marine fisheries agencies have assumed the lead in acquiring permits, maintaining liability, financing, constructing, researching, and monitoring marine artificial reefs through state supported programs. The level and type of state involvement in an artificial reef program is usually governed by the following factors: 1) the need to offset fishery or habitat stress with habitat enhancement; 2) the degree of public support; 3) constituency pressures to enhance access to fisheries; and 4) the availability of a stable funding source to support reef construction. Many coastal states have adopted their own plans based on the Plan's guidance. In effect, the states have been responsible for implementing the Plan and collecting information necessary for updating guidance in the Plan, and for strengthening provisions of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984. State resource managers recognize that benthic artificial reef construction involves long-term alteration of bottom habitat. Potential effects on natural resources and the environment should be considered prior to construction. Some past artificial reef construction projects which were used largely to justify solid waste disposal, were not well researched regarding specific resource or fishery enhancement problems, did not have specific fisheries management objectives, and would not be acceptable under present artificial reef development policies or philosophies. There is general consensus among state agencies that artificial reef projects must be considered as fishery management issues. As more species become subject to FMP regulations, it is important that state artificial reef programs become more closely linked organizationally with state fishery management programs. The states have a strong interest in activities that may affect EFH. States have considerable ability to ensure that EFH concerns are addressed fully before any action potentially affecting such habitat may proceed. A state program for artificial reef construction is an integral part of any comprehensive state/federal effort to protect, restore or enhance habitats essential to valuable commercial and recreational fisheries. Because of the potential long-term effects of artificial reef development on the environment and on finfish and shellfish stocks, eligibility to hold a permit to develop an artificial reef should be restricted to the appropriate state fishery management agency. The states' natural resource agencies hold the public trust in managing resources associated with artificial reefs and are the principal entities that can demonstrate long-term accountability for liability required in artificial reef permits. If a state wishes to extend its permit authority to other entities, it should do so in writing to the appropriate Corps office. However, the state agency should be a key authority for artificial reef development and management activities in state waters and coordinate with appropriate fishery management councils and NMFS. States without artificial reef programs should direct development of artificial reefs through the state marine fisheries resource agency to assure consistency with fishery management objectives. The states role in the artificial reef construction process is to develop or participate in developing statewide and site-specific plans. Such plans should be designed to maintain regulatory and quality control that ensures all artificial reefs: 1) have a specific objective for fisheries management or other purpose stated in the goal of the statewide, or site-specific plan; 2) have biological justification relating to present and future fishery management needs; 3) will have minimal negative effects on existing fisheries, and/or conflicts with other uses; 4) will have minimal negative effects on other natural resources and their future use; 5) use materials that have long-term compatibility with the aquatic environment; and 6) are monitored during and after construction to determine whether reefs meet permit terms and conditions and are functioning as anticipated. State natural resource agencies should be involved in all artificial reef construction in their waters, and should also be consulted on artificial reef development in adjacent federal waters. When artificial reef construction projects go beyond state government financial limitations, state natural resource agencies should, at a minimum, provide guidelines, policies, and acceptable procedures to assist other organizations undertaking artificial reef projects. Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions Coastal states have coordinated artificial reef activities through their respective IMFCs. State reef developers have progressed beyond focusing solely on creating access to fisheries utilizing materials of opportunity. The states have been innovative in utilizing the tools available to them to validate methodologies in reef research on such topics as construction and siting, fishery management, regulatory requirements, and reef biology (including production and aggregation issues). The role of the IMFCs is to provide an open forum for discussion and debate on issues facing state artificial reef program managers, respective federal agencies, and affected fisheries interests. Most IFMCs have established technical advisory committees for marine artificial reef development. These committees are composed of the coordinators of the state marine artificial reef programs within the respective state agencies responsible for marine and coastal resources management. Committee membership also includes representatives from the NMFS, the USFWS, the MMS, the EPA, and the FMCs. These committees provide critical advice to the IMFCs relative to development of marine artificial reefs, and have served to increase responsiveness and efficiency of coastal artificial reef programs. Joint IMFC committee activities have served to consolidate individual state efforts along the coasts, thus assisting in the promotion and facilitation of responsible and effective efforts to establish artificial reefs. The committees have worked cooperatively to identify and resolve national issues such as developing standardized criteria for materials used to build artificial reefs. Coastal states should continue such coordination through the relevant bodies of their respective IMFCs. Local Governments (County and Municipal) Local government agencies have been involved in directing or coordinating artificial reef programs. Their role has included coordinating programs to provide materials for reef construction; providing technical support or supervision for community efforts; conducting and financially supporting reef programs, obtaining state monies for local reef efforts; and publicizing local reef efforts. These efforts should be conducted under the oversight of state fishery management agencies to ensure compatibility with established state, regional, and national fishery management goals. As part of the economic development activities of local chambers of commerce, local governments should assist state artificial reef programs in collection of relevant social and economic information. Such information is extremely important in developing goals and objectives for reefs. Private The construction of many artificial reefs in the years prior to enactment of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 was initiated by individuals, sport fishing clubs, local artificial reef committees, and diving clubs. Private groups and organizations played an important role in artificial reef development during this time. They communicated the needs of fishermen, lobbied for the development of local and state artificial reef programs, and undertook fund-raising activities. In addition, private individuals and clubs often provided volunteer services for the cleaning, modification, construction, transportation, and deployment phases of artificial reef projects. Under the supervision of biologists, local divers have contributed to monitoring and evaluation studies. Such activities have encouraged entrepreneurial ventures by private interests in development of artificial reef materials and designs. Although these groups have traditionally played an important role in development of artificial reefs in many states, they should coordinate their activities with state artificial reef programs or state marine fishery resources agencies to ensure such reefs are used properly and in compliance with all pertinent regulations and management goals. Also federal, local, and academic expertise should be sought to achieve the most successful reef projects. Recent developments in the private sector should help resolve some of the problems reef builders have had in initiating programs. Several companies now provide expertise in artificial reef development, as well as effective materials for construction of artificial reefs. Some private reef developers have been innovative in working with state artificial reef programs by not only providing innovative materials and designs for reef construction but also locating financial assistance and volunteer labor for deployment activities and monitoring. Nonprofit organizations, universities, and consortiums may add expertise in this area as well. GUIDELINES Siting Proper siting is vital to the success of an artificial reef. The initial focus should be to enhance or create viable habitat that will benefit fisheries associated with the reef material and design while not impeding or interfering with navigation. The goals of the artificial reef project, social and economic considerations, and environmental and biological concerns should be identified early in the planning stages. Reefs that are improperly sited can result in a number of negative impacts, including hazards to navigation, damage to naturally productive bottom, and environmental clean-up problems. Hazards to navigation includes potential hazards to fishing vessels. On occasion, commercial and recreational fishing vessels have become entangled in artificial reef structures only to lose gear and entrap marine life. Such ill-conceived projects should not be permitted. The following guidelines are provided to assist reef builders in the critical site selection stage of artificial reef development. Purpose Traditionally, the majority of artificial reefs in United States coastal marine waters have been sited and built to enhance recreational fishing. Other uses undoubtedly will be considered as fishery stocks come under increasing pressure. Properly sited, constructed and managed reef sites, particularly multiple-site complexes, can meet a variety of uses. However, all of these uses should share the common purpose of enhancing the marine habitat for associated fishes and other organisms. The fundamental issue dictating the design and location of an artificial reef is the intended purpose(s) or objective(s). Failure to clearly identify the objectives at the outset can detract significantly from overall reef effectiveness and utility, and compromise public confidence in artificial reef programs. For the most part, state and federal fishery management agencies, FMCs, and other natural resource management entities have established protocols for siting artificial reefs. Those outside of these entities with an interest in building artificial reefs should contact the relevant state agency to obtain pertinent background information, (i.e., biological, socioeconomic, and regulatory) to identify the best procedure for advancing a proposed reef-building project. These agencies should work together to identify commercial and recreational fishing interests which should be considered in the planning process from the outset. Also, they should ensure open lines of communications exist to avoid potential conflicts among user groups. While the majority of reefs have been built to support and enhance recreational fishing, interest is growing in using artificial reefs to restore, mitigate, or create habitat, to improve recruitment, and enhance juvenile survival and growth of reef-associated species. Habitat Enhancement and Creation Prospective reef builders should have an understanding of the limiting factors involving the fauna and flora that will utilize an artificial reef site. Builders should identify the habitat type and/or species targeted for enhancement and determine which biological, physical, and chemical site conditions will be most conducive to meeting the objectives. Once these siting criteria are determined, they should be used in identifying potential construction sites and materials to be used. Infaunal communities in the area where the reef is to be built should be considered prior to placement. Artificial reefs should not be constructed such that they are on or threaten the integrity of many types of natural habitats, such as: 1) existing coral reefs; 2) significant beds of aquatic grasses or macroalgae; 3) oyster reefs (except for shell stock replenishment); 4) scallop, mussel, or clam beds; or 5) existing live bottom (marine areas supporting growth of sponges, sea fans, corals, and other sessile invertebrates generally associated with rock outcrops). In some cases, however, it may make sense to construct artificial reefs in areas with sparse live assemblages or on barren bottoms in proximity to biologically productive areas. This can be done to enhance the area and/or to divert user pressure from fragile natural areas. Recreational Fishing Enhancement Prospective reef builders should assess the relative importance of, and demand for, shore-based and boat-based fishing activity. The national Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) or similar state surveys could provide such information. Other factors that should be considered include: 1) location of shoreline access points (e.g., ramps, piers, marinas, bridges, and charter and party boat docks); 2) general fishing methods and use patterns (e.g., trolling versus bottom fishing, vessel sizes, distances traveled offshore, skin and SCUBA diving); and 3) potential conflicts with other users (e.g., commercial fishermen, divers, shipping, general navigation, military, mineral and energy extraction, historic wrecks and sites, etc.). State and local government-sponsored artificial reef programs should attempt to accommodate the full range of recreational fishing needs. In addition to providing for the needs of boat-based anglers in offshore and inshore waters, artificial reefs should be considered to enhance or maintain recreational fishing from bridges, piers, jetties, and other shoreline locations. State and local cooperation is vital to assure the stability of materials used and to avoid potential conflicts. Enhancement of shore-based angling can have particular social and economic significance to coastal communities with heavy tourist traffic and can help to expand public support for artificial reef development. Caution should be exercised when developing artificial reefs in nearshore areas due to the increased potential for spatial and use conflict. Improperly sited reefs may also alter the ecological balance and care should be taken not to enhance a recreational fish resource at the expense of other species or habitat. For example, sandy estuarine habitat often provides critical nursery grounds for the juveniles of many species of groundfishes. It is the absence of large fish which are favored by recreational anglers that provides the only predator protection these fish receive at this critical life stage. Yet such locations may be popular choices for siting artificial reefs to attract large fish. Careful project planning will minimize these conflicts. Recreational reefs are generally used more when they are properly charted (mapped); adequately marked (buoyed); located fairly close to shore; accessible by running simple compass headings and known distances from permanently marked buoys at the mouths of major rivers, inlets, or passes; and have published coordinates. If reefs are located fairly close to shore and are not buoyed, reef sponsors should provide visual lineups with shoreline reference points (e.g., water tanks, buildings, antenna towers) to allow boaters who do not have electronic navigation equipment to find the reefs easily. Sponsors of artificial reefs should develop and distribute public information brochures and/or flyers describing reef locations, fishing conditions at each site, applicable fishing regulations, or use restrictions. Such restrictions would include observance of diving flags, anchoring guidelines, fishing gear restrictions, catch limitations, and courtesies which should be extended to other reef users. Accurate reef information is critical to public use and benefits. Sport Diver Enhancement and Access Sport divers represent a growing number of artificial reef users. The development of new technology and the increased availability of diver training and access has led to a tremendous increase in the number of sport divers in the United States. The economic impact of sport divers frequenting artificial reefs rivals that of recreational fishing activities in some regions. Reefs proposed for divers should be sited and constructed at depths that will provide reasonable bottom time and minimize the decompression hazard. Factors such as water clarity, proximity to other popular dive areas, average current velocities, depth, and possible conflicts with other user groups (e.g., recreational hook and line and/or commercial fishing, navigation, etc.) should be considered. Commercial Fishing Enhancement The use of commercial fishing reefs could prove beneficial by providing specially designated sites for commercial fishing only. This could reduce conflicts with recreational anglers and divers. To effectively accomplish this approach, SMZ status through state and federal regulatory processes would be required. Another approach to this objective would be to site artificial reefs for commercial fishing activity far enough offshore or from shore-based access sites that recreational anglers and divers would not be likely to travel there. As in any other application of artificial reefs, it is useful to consider the issue of habitat limitation when siting reefs for commercial purposes. The distribution of reef and reef-like habitats is sporadic, leaving large expanses of sea bottom covered by silt, mud, and sand. Such areas are typically devoid of species that are known to associate with reef habitats, including snappers, groupers, triggerfish, porgies, black seabass, tautog, and Pacific rockfish, among others. However, many commercially important species may not be limited by habitat. Instead they may be limited by impacts of fishing activities or negative environmental parameters, such as poor water quality. In these cases, artificial reefs may not enhance the net gain in catch, and may actually contribute to a decline in the total biomass. Along with the historic practice of shell (cultch) planting to create or enhance oyster reefs, artificial reef technology may also be applied to the following: 1) creating and/or expanding kelp beds; 2) oysters and mussel culture; 3) enhancing the yield and survival of spiny and American lobster; 4) concentrating pelagic species to enhance harvest; 5) live rock culture; 6) providing essential habitat for associated reef fishes; and 7) culture of organisms for biomedical use. Marine Reserves The use of artificial reefs as marine reserves (either for a certain stock or for protection against all consumptive uses) has been applied in very few areas to date. However, this may be one of the most underutilized applications for artificial reefs. The idea of marine reserves covering large amounts of natural live bottom areas has been debated by fisheries management agencies for several years. This idea has little support among recreational and commercial fishing interests. The use of newly sited and constructed artificial reefs to create marine reserves could ease some of these concerns, providing hard substrate and habitat while leaving traditional fishing areas open. Artificial reef managers involved in siting and constructing reefs for marine reserves should, as with all reef planning, clearly identify the goals of the reef. Proper siting should take the following factors into consideration: 1) proximity to natural live bottom; 2) primary target species and associated prey species; 3) life history stages of affected species; 4) hydrological and geophysical factors; 5) enforcement; 6) traditional uses of the proposed site; 7) paths of ingress and egress to and from the site for target species; and 8) material design best suited to meet the reef objectives. Mitigation Artificial reefs have been employed to mitigate the destruction or degradation of various marine habitats due to development or catastrophic loss. In some instances, the application has been in-kind, on-site mitigation. For example, a coral reef in Key Biscayne National Park, damaged by the impact of a large vessel, was successfully repaired using state-of-the-art technology that simulated natural coral. In other instances, reefs have been built a distance from the damaged area to substitute for non-reef habitat. For example, the Corps built an artificial reef in Delaware Bay as mitigation for loss of brackish water river bottom. However, it is preferable to use mitigation in-kind and as near the location of the damage as possible. The use of artificial reefs to mitigate the loss or damage of marine habitats is a complex issue that involves more than substituting one type of habitat for another. The benefits gained from creating an artificial reef may not be the same as those derived from the natural system it is intended to replace. Whenever possible, the area in which the environmental damage might occur should be studied beforehand to discover the ecological functions provided by the existing system. Then, artificial reef technology, which will simulate those functions to the greatest degree possible, should be utilized. When artificial reefs are proposed for non-reef related mitigation, often it is the only way to attempt to compensate for the loss of such habitat or fishery access. When faced with this situation, resource managers have two primary considerations: 1) can artificial reef technology be used to repair or replace the damaged habitat; and 2) if not, how can artificial reef technology be used to replenish specific elements of the overall resources of the area. Social and Economic Considerations It is likely that the majority of artificial reefs will continue to be built to support fishing and diving activities and artificial reefs constructed for recreational use normally will be near major population centers. Occasional reef construction in less populated areas may be appropriate to stimulate local economies and alleviate fishing pressure on more congested sites. Reef builders can use census reports, together with fishing license, boat registration, and landings data to delineate recreational fishing demand centers. For commercial fishing reefs, demand centers may be more sparsely populated, but should be recognized fishing communities with the appropriate infrastructure. Artificial reefs built for divers should focus on population centers with dive charter availability or potential. Artificial reefs built for research, reserves, culture of aquatic organisms, and other less user-oriented purposes will require siting criteria more specific to those u