Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

1999 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Fishery Management ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
The United States ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
Cumulative Impacts ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service ◽  
Fisheries Act ◽  
Ecosystem Approaches

<em>Abstract.</em> —With the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in the fall of 1996, significant new opportunities and challenges exist in the United States to protect and conserve the habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish as well as key populations of mollusks and crustaceans. As of October 1998, all federal fishery management councils (the Councils) were required to amend their fishery management plans (covering over 700 stocks) to identify, for each species, the essential fish habitat, which is “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, feeding or growth to maturity.” Threats to habitat and steps necessary to ameliorate those threats also had to be identified. Information from fisheries scientists and managers throughout the country will be needed to accurately identify essential fish habitat and habitat threats and to monitor the effectiveness of protective measures that come into force once habitat has been identified as essential. My vision, which is also that of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is no further loss of habitat quantity and quality as well as the preservation and restoration of habitat biodiversity by the year 2004. The essential fish habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provide an outstanding opportunity for the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Councils, and our numerous partners from every sector of society to develop new ecosystem approaches to fishery management addressing cumulative impacts to habitats in a comprehensive, effective, and efficient manner.

Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

1999 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Fishery Management ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
The United States ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
Management Planning ◽  
Fishing Fleets ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service ◽  
Conservation And Management ◽  
Poor Management

<em>Abstract</em> .—Food production in the United States from ocean fisheries is leveling off after impressive growth in the 1970s and 1980s. Fishery officials project further gains through more effective regulation of harvests and reduced discarding of catch. In the longer term, however, the most important opportunity to boost production involves rehabilitating fishery habitats that have been damaged or lost because of poor management. Many thousand tons of additional seafood production can be “unlocked” for fishermen and consumers if habitats are restored. Changes in 1996 to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Magnuson-Stevens Act) call for the mapping of these habitats and the inclusion of habitat concerns in fishery management planning. These new requirements, if properly implemented, will help focus the attention of fishermen and seafood consumers on what is being lost and what needs to be done to restore productivity. Although these requirements are a good first step, the rules and guidance for the new essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions are fundamentally flawed. For example, the rules to implement EFH provisions muddle the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s definition of EFH with numerous references to prey species and vague ecological ideas. Especially troubling is the introduction by the National Marine Fisheries Service through the rules of the concept of “contribution to a healthy ecosystem” as an apparent standard for delineating necessary amounts of EFH. In addition, it is important to remember that competition among fishing fleets is fierce, and the promise of these new habitat requirements could be lost if habitat concerns become enmeshed in the ongoing political battles for harvest allocations.

Benthic Habitats and the Effects of Fishing

2005 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Fishery Management ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
The North ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service ◽  
Conservation And Management

<strong><em>Abstract. </em></strong>Eight regional fishery management councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are charged with managing fisheries outside 3 mi (5 km) in accordance with the Magnuson– Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and other federal law. Protecting fish habitat is just one of many management responsibilities. All fishery management plans must describe and identify essential fish habitat using guidelines established by the Secretary of Commerce, and managers must minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects caused by fishing and encourage conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat. This paper summarizes habitat provisions in the MSA, Secretarial guidance, and how they have evolved over time. It reviews the actions of the eight councils to identify and protect habitat and discusses how additional fishing restrictions must be approached within the context of other issues facing managers. Managers are pressured not only to protect habitat from a wide range of fishing gears, but to reduce bycatch, minimize impacts on stressed and endangered species, rebuild and maintain fish stocks, provide optimum yield, protect communities, promote safety, and simultaneously provide for economically feasible fisheries. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council actions to protect habitat are discussed in more detail as an example of the challenges faced in balancing conservation and management needs. Legal issues are discussed, as well as the high costs of conducting the research necessary to identify essential fish habitat and its relation with fish stocks. It is argued that despite the challenges of the council and NMFS fishery management process under the MSA, it still remains the most expedient way to develop habitat protections with higher probability of acceptance by the fishing industry.

Pacific Salmon Environmental and Life History Models: Advancing Science for Sustainable Salmon in the Future

2009 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Life History ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Life Histories ◽  
Pacific Salmon ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Puget Sound ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
The United States ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Fisheries Act

<em>Abstract.</em>—The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act states that all federal fisheries management plans should contain a description of essential fish habitat (EFH). While much emphasis has been placed on estimating EFH for marine stocks, very little attention has been paid to doing so for Pacific salmon <em>Oncorhynchus </em>spp., in part due to their complex life histories. An earlier assessment of EFH for Pacific salmon across the west coast of the United States focused on the freshwater component of EFH due to limited knowledge about marine distributions. That analysis concluded that a more in-depth and smaller-scale examination was needed to assess how freshwater habitat affects the various life stages. Here we use a detailed life history model for Pacific salmon to estimate the freshwater component of EFH for two threatened populations of Chinook salmon within a large watershed draining into Puget Sound, Washington, USA. By accounting for proposed harvest rates, hatchery practices, and habitat structure, we identified 23 of 50 subbasins as EFH for ensuring no significant decrease in the total number of spawners relative to current average escapement. Our analytical framework could be easily applied to other populations or species of salmon to aid in developing recovery and management plans.

Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

1999 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Management ◽  
Fishery Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Fish Populations ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Management Approaches ◽  
Fish Habitats ◽  
Important Fish

<em>Abstract.—</em> It cannot be denied that habitat is essential to healthy fish populations. A significant number of fish species in the Gulf of Mexico and around the country depends on estuaries during some stage of their life cycles. Despite this fact, fish habitats are increasingly destroyed and degraded by pollution, dredging, freshwater influx, and other human activities. If healthy fish populations are to be maintained, threats to fish habitat must be addressed. However, traditional management practices have neglected and continue to ignore threats to important fish habitat. The essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) present an unprecedented opportunity to develop habitat-based management approaches to protect and restore important fish habitats in the ocean and in vital estuarine areas. This is not to say the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are a panacea for habitat protection. For example, there is no enforceable mechanism for preventing activities that destroy areas of EFH. Nonetheless, the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act can go far in achieving the intended results if the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) promulgates guidelines requiring ecosystem-based management, if regional EFH amendments go beyond minimalist requirements to address threats to habitat through comprehensive habitat management plans, and if regional fishery management councils become important players in the host of federal decisions that affect fish habitat. The NMFS and the regional fishery management councils must be required to take full advantage of this unique opportunity.

scholarly journals Using species distribution models to describe essential fish habitat in Alaska

2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (8) ◽  
pp. 1230-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward A. Laman ◽  
Christopher N. Rooper ◽  
Kali Turner ◽  
Sean Rooney ◽  
Dan W. Cooper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Species Distribution ◽  
Bering Sea ◽  
Fishery Management ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Life Stage ◽  
Adult Life ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
Distribution Models ◽  
Distribution Maps ◽  
Northern Bering Sea

Describing essential habitat is an important step toward understanding and conserving harvested species in ecosystem-based fishery management. Using data from fishery-independent ichthyoplankton, groundfish surveys, and commercial fisheries observer data, we utilized species distribution modeling techniques to predict habitat-based spatial distributions of federally managed species in Alaska. The distribution and abundance maps were used to refine existing essential fish habitat descriptions for the region. In particular, we used maximum entropy and generalized additive modeling to delineate distribution and abundance of early (egg, larval, and pelagic juvenile) and later (settled juvenile and adult) life history stages of groundfishes and crabs across multiple seasons in three large marine ecosystems (Gulf of Alaska, eastern Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands) and the northern Bering Sea. We present a case study, featuring Kamchatka flounder (Atheresthes evermanni), from the eastern and northern Bering Sea to represent the >400 habitat-based distribution maps generated for more than 80 unique species–region–season–life-stage combinations. The results of these studies will be used to redescribe essential habitat of federally managed fishes and crabs in Alaska.

Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

1999 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Habitat Management ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Initial Study ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Fishing Gear ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
Management Plans

<em>Abstract.</em> —This study sought input from fishermen on their knowledge of fish habitat and the effects of fishing gear to fill some gaps in the science. We looked for any documentation of habitats and effects to habitats from fishing gear or other causes that fishermen could or were willing to provide. This report summarizes documentation provided by fishermen of fish habitat, changes to habitat observed over time, and fishing gear effects. In addition, the report evaluates the effectiveness of different approaches to identify fishermen’s knowledge and document their observations. To better represent fishermen and provide accurate information, we were interested in fishermen’s responses to two questions: (1) How can we better solicit fishermen’s knowledge of habitat, and (2) what would make it possible for fishermen to share that information? The results of this study were influenced by several factors, including the fact that methodologies for integrating fishermen’s knowledge into fisheries scientific literature and fisheries management are at an embryonic stage. In addition, for this initial study, resources were limited, which gave the survey a strong New England bias. We also found that fishermen are reluctant to get involved in essential fish habitat identification for several reasons, including the perceived proprietary nature of their habitat information. This review represents an important first step toward making the crucial linkage between fisheries management and fishermen’s local knowledge. This study and future similar studies will provide opportunities to bring fishermen’s knowledge to the forefront as essential fish habitat management plans are being developed. The contribution of fishermen’s knowledge should help managers design a balanced regulatory system that will lead to sustainable fisheries and fisheries communities.

scholarly journals Leading or lagging: How well are climate change considerations being incorporated into Canadian fisheries management?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Daniel G. Boyce ◽  
Susanna Fuller ◽  
Chelsey Karbowski ◽  
Katie Schleit ◽  
Boris Worm
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Fishery Management ◽  
Climate Variability And Change ◽  
Precautionary Approach ◽  
Arctic Regions ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
High Uncertainty ◽  
Ecosystem Approaches

In response to fisheries declines and delayed population recoveries, many management agencies globally are integrating alternative strategies that incorporate precautionary and ecosystem considerations, increasingly focusing on climate variability and change. Here, we quantitatively evaluate how these themes have been incorporated into the science and management plans for Canada’s fisheries by analyzing the content of 905 research and management documents published by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for the Atlantic and Eastern Arctic regions. We found that the precautionary approach was mentioned much more frequently (44%) than climate change (11%) or ecosystem approaches to fisheries management (1%). Of research documents that mentioned climate change, 61% contained only a single reference to it, suggesting that it is not quantitatively evaluated in the science that informs the advisory and decision-making processes. Most references to climate change in the DFO research documents expressed high uncertainty of how climate change would impact the stock dynamics. We propose explanations for this and discuss approaches for increasing the incorporation of these themes into Canada’s fishery management.

Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

1999 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Shallow Water ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Benthic Communities ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Demersal Fish ◽  
Sediment Type ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
Shark Species ◽  
Management Plans

<em> Abstract.—</em> Major amendments in 1996 to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require fisheries managers to define “essential” fish habitat and address the impact of fishing gear in their management plans. However, before considering what might qualify as essential fish habitat, it is necessary to first understand the association between fish and their habitat. Some studies have already revealed subtle relationships between fishes and sediment type; however, this approach does not quantify habitat complexity. We undertook a large-scale survey of demersal fish populations and benthic communities in the southern North Sea and eastern English Channel. As in other studies, water depth was closely linked to the main dichotomy in assemblage composition. Flatfishes occurred in shallow water, whereas roundfishes and small shark species were found in deeper habitats. Within each of these two sample station groupings, the assemblages dichotomised further on the basis of habitat type and benthic faunal associations. Three further groupings were identified within the deepwater habitat. These groupings were characterized by the presence of rocks, broken shells, or a large biomass of sessile epibenthos. Small shark species were almost exclusive to habitats with shelly substrata. In contrast, the shallow-water habitats were topographically less complex with sessile epibenthos of a smaller biomass. Flatfishes that were visual predators were most closely associated with habitats with some sessile epibenthos, whereas sole <em>Solea solea</em> , which largely locate their prey using chemosensory cues, were more closely associated with the least complex habitat. Although these flatfish habitats are intensively fished by bottom trawls, the characteristic sessile epifauna are relatively fast growing and are probably able to withstand such disturbance. In contrast, the deepwater sessile communities had sessile epifauna of a greater biomass with some slow-growing species that would be more vulnerable to fishing disturbance. However, these habitats are seldom fished using invasive techniques.

Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

1999 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Complexity ◽  
Fishery Management ◽  
Numerical Models ◽  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Natural Disturbance ◽  
Fishing Effort ◽  
Essential Fish Habitat ◽  
State Models ◽  
Structural Habitat

<em>Abstract.—</em> The 1996 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandates that regional fishery management councils must designate essential fish habitat (EFH) for each managed species, assess the effects of fishing on EFH, and develop conservation measures for EFH where needed. This synthesis of fishing effects on habitat was produced to aid the fishery management councils in assessing the impacts of fishing activities. A wide range of studies was reviewed that reported effects of fishing on habitat (i.e., structural habitat components, community structure, and ecosystem processes) for a diversity of habitats and fishing gear types. Commonalities of all studies included immediate effects on species composition and diversity and a reduction in habitat complexity. Studies of acute effects were found to be a good predictor of chronic effects. Recovery after fishing was more variable depending on habitat type, life history strategy of component species, and the natural disturbance regime. The ultimate goal of gear impact studies should not be to retrospectively analyze environmental impacts but ultimately to develop the ability to predict outcomes of particular management regimes. Synthesizing the results of these studies into predictive numerical models is not currently possible. However, conceptual models can coalesce the patterns found over the range of observations and can be used to predict effects of gear impacts within the framework of current ecological theory. Initially, it is useful to consider fishes’ use of habitats along a gradient of habitat complexity and environmental variability. Such considerations can be facilitated by a model of gear impacts on a range of seafloor types based on changes in structural habitat values. Disturbance theory provides the framework for predicting effects of habitat change based on spatial patterns of disturbance. Alternative community state models and type 1–type 2 disturbance patterns may be used to predict the general outcome of habitat management. Primary data are lacking on the spatial extent of fishing-induced disturbance, the effects of specific gear types along a gradient of fishing effort, and the linkages between habitat characteristics and the population dynamics of fishes. Adaptive and precautionary management practices will therefore be required until empirical data become available for validating model predictions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document