Transcript David Stevenson - Gulf of Maine Council

Habitat mapping needs under the EFH provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act
David Stevenson, NOAA Fisheries Service
Chad Demarest, New England Fishery Mgmt Council
Goals of Fishery Management
Controlling fishing activity to affect how it:
1. modifies the size and production potential of
exploited resource populations;
2. modifies the environment’s capacity to support
productive/sustainable resource populations
and ecosystems.
Habitat maps needed for fishery
management
• So, question is, what kind of maps do fishery
managers need in order to manage habitat
impacts of fishing and other human activities?
• In an ideal world, need to know what habitat
features enhance productivity, and how, how
those features are affected by different kinds of
human-induced (and natural) disturbance, and
where they are located.
• Goal is to maximize resource productivity, not to
restore pristine environments: maximum
production is associated with some level of
habitat disturbance
“It is therefore declared to be the purposes of the
Congress in this Act ...to promote the protection of
essential fish habitat in the review of projects
conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or other
authorities that affect or have the potential to affect
such habitat.”
Sustainable Fisheries Act, 1996
R. Cooper; OAR/National Undersea Research Program (NURP); University of Connecticut
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
“Those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity.”
Sustainable Fisheries Act, 1996
EFH Definitions
• “Waters” include aquatic areas and their
associated physical, chemical, and biological
properties that are used by fish.
• “Substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom,
structures underlying the water, and associated
biological communities.
• “Necessary” means the habitat required to
support a sustainable fishery and the managed
species contribution to a healthy ecosystem.
EFH PROVISIONS of SFA
• The Fishery Management Councils must
describe and identify EFH for managed species,
evaluate the effects of fishing on EFH, minimize to
the extent practicable adverse effects on EFH
caused by fishing, and identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and enhancement of
EFH
• Federal agencies must consult with NOAA
Fisheries Service on any actions that may
adversely effect EFH
More definitions
• “Adverse effect” means any impact that
reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH.
Adverse effects may include direct or
indirect physical, chemical, or biological
alterations [of habitat] and loss of, or injury
to, benthic organisms, prey species and
their habitats, and other ecosystem
components…”
Minimize adverse effects of fishing
• The Fishery Management
Councils must describe
and identify EFH for
managed species,
minimize to the extent
practicable adverse
effects on EFH caused by
fishing, and identify other
actions to encourage the
conservation and
enhancement of EFH
NOAA consultations on projects
that may adversely affect EFH
Thresholds for Mgmt Action
• Councils must minimize to the extent practicable
adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing “IF
there is evidence that a fishing activity adversely
affects EFH in a manner that is more than
minimal and not temporary in nature.”
• Where “temporary impacts are those that are
limited in duration and that allow the particular
environment to recover without measurable
impact and minimal impacts are those that may
result in relatively small changes in the affected
environment and insignificant changes in
ecological functions.”
EFH Final Rule
Response to comments
• “The rule advocates a risk-averse approach to
identifying EFH because of the uncertainty of our
knowledge of habitat and its relation to fisheries
production.”
• “The final rule also clarifies that if sufficient
information is available, EFH should be
identified as the habitats supporting the highest
relative abundance; growth, reproduction, or
survival rates; and/or production rates within the
geographic range of a species.”
EFH Final Rule
Response to comments
“It is not appropriate to require definitive
proof of a link between fishing impacts to
EFH and reduced stock productivity before
Councils can take action to minimize
adverse fishing impacts to EFH to the
extent practicable.”
EFH Final Rule requirements for
designating EFH
Level 1: Distribution data are
available for some or all portions
of the geographic range of the
species
– Level 2: Habitat-related densities
of the species are available
– Level 3: Growth, reproduction, or
survival rates within habitats are
available
– Level 4: Production rates by
habitat are available
EFH Designation Components
–EFH Text Descriptions describe the types of
habitat and physical characteristics (sediment,
depth, temperature, salinity, etc.) that comprise
the EFH for a given life stage and species.
–EFH Maps identify, “within the constraints of
available information, the geographic locations of
EFH or the geographic boundaries within which
EFH…is found."
Example EFH Alternative 3
Cumulative
NEFSC Survey
Catch Rate
Spring and Fall
Bottom Depth
Spring and Fall
Temperature
Sediment
composition
Habitat Layer
Restriction to
Next Highest
Cumulative
Catch Rate
Inshore State
Frequency of
Occurrence
Data
Off-Shelf
Depth Range
Preferred juvenile winter flounder EFH alternative (3E)
Juvenile Winter Flounder EFH: Old vs. New
Status Quo/Current
New Preferred Alternative
Fisheries Mgmt Uses of EFH
• Enhancing resource productivity is, ideally, the
goal of habitat management, but current state of
knowledge/information limits use of EFH
designations to broader, less-defined, habitat
protection goals.
• NOAA consultations on impacts of non-fishing
activities are currently the #1 way in which EFH
is used operationally, especially since stock rebuilding strategies have reduced fishing effort in
groundfish fishery.
Fisheries Mgmt Uses of EFH
74°
72°
70°
68°
66°
70°
68°
66°
44°
Closed Areas
Groundfish Closed Areas
44°
42°
Habitat Closed Areas
36°
36°
38°
38°
40°
40°
42°
• Amendments 10 and 13 to
Scallop and Multispecies
FMPs (2003/2004) established
seven habitat closed areas
(2800 sq miles) to minimize the
adverse effects of mobile,
bottom-tending gear on EFH
• This established baseline for
measuring impacts of more
recent management actions
• NEFMC currently engaged in
development of Omnibus EFH
Amendment that will re-visit
measures needed to minimize
impacts of fishing on EFH for
NEFMC managed species
76°
76°
74°
72°
Species Managed by NEFMC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
American plaice
Atlantic cod
Atlantic halibut
Atlantic herring
Atlantic salmon
Atlantic sea scallop
Barndoor skate
Clearnose skate
Deep-sea red crab
Haddock
Little skate
Monkfish
Ocean pout
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Offshore hake
Pollock
Red hake
Redfish
Rosette skate
Silver hake
Smooth skate
Thorny skate
White hake
Windowpane flounder
Winter flounder
Witch flounder
Yellowtail flounder
Other uses of habitat maps for
fisheries management?
• Identify areas that are suitable for stock
enhancement (e.g., scallops)
• Improve stock assessments by targeting
surveys to appropriate bottom habitats
• Identify appropriate areas for marine
reserves
• Furthering ecosystem-based management
(get away from single species approach)
Maps may not look the same in all cases!
What’s next for EFH?
• Habitat descriptions and maps that are based on
ways in which species – or groups of species
with similar habitat requirements – use/rely on
habitats (i.e., level 3 or 4 information that links
habitat use with growth and survival, or with
resource production)
• Maps that are based on location of EFH, not
abundance/distribution of the fish
• Will require better maps and more research to
identify functional uses of habitat by managed
species