Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

Part One: Essential Fish Habitat Perspectives

Ronald C. Baird

doi: https://doi.org/10.47886/9781888569124.ch1

The presentations and discussions during the opening session of the Sea Grant fish habitat symposium at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society focused primarily on the critical dimensions of contemporary habitat degradation and the related policy and management issues involved in ensuring compliance with the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). It is important to note, however, that the intended purpose of the EFH provisions of the SFA is to ensure the production on a sustainable basis of harvestable products. The SFA ultimately is concerned with measurable economic benefits (derived from the removal of fish from the environment), and the SFA’s habitat preservation and rehabilitation elements are intended to preserve and enhance those economic benefits. Although the SFA’s EFH provisions have profound implications for the environmental protection of marine ecosystems, the SFA differs considerably in its philosophical basis from other environmental protection legislation in that the SFA implies that ecosystems are “managed” for economic purposes.

From the perspectives of the fisheries manager, environmentalist, industry representative, and scientist who make up the first section of this book, there is general agreement that habitat degradation is the most important threat to the long-term recovery and preservation of exploitable fish stocks. Degradation simply must be addressed, and in a timely fashion. The contributors point to the diversity of threats and impacts arising primarily from explosive population growth and development in coastal areas. The authors call attention to the nonfishing activities that now threaten fish stocks. Impacts from nonfishing activities occur primarily in coastal waters and estuaries, environments upon which a significant proportion of our commercial fish stocks are dependent at some stage of their lives. Specific threats cited by the authors of the following chapters include destruction of wetlands, eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, and direct degradation or alteration of the environment. Harvesting practices are also strongly implicated as contributors to degradation. Excessive bycatch, overfishing, and gearinduced habitat destruction can lead to irreversible or long-term effects due to the conversion of ecosystems to less-productive states. The authors acknowledge a fundamental relationship between quality of habitat and quality of fisheries resources.

There is general agreement among the authors that the EFH provisions are a necessary first step to habitat preservation and restoration. Previous laws have been too narrow to allow comprehensive approaches to fisheries habitat management. The real challenge is the development of public policy and suitable EFH guidelines. There promises to be considerable controversy over current interpretations of EFH policy that will create an intense political climate. Strong views are expressed in some of the following chapters that the current law and guidelines have serious problems. There is concern that the SFA contains no enforceable mechanisms for preventing nonfishing activities from degrading habitats. Minimalist approaches and political pressures are real problems here. The policy’s lack of performance criteria and lack of risk-assessment measures are also noted in this section of the book. Threats need to be ranked according to scale, severity, and persistence. Some of the authors note the importance of consensus and constituency involvement and cite problems with definitions such as critical habitat, ecosystem health, sustainable abundances, and optimum yield in relation to the EFH provisions. The notion of preserves and refuges, as well as the importance of activities detrimental to fish stocks that occur in areas where fish are not abundant, must be considered. Finally, some of the authors in this section express concern that the EFH policy may be open to such broad interpretations and controversies that the resulting backlash might further “water down” the present legislation.