Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

Summary of Panel Discussions and Steps toward an Agenda for Habitat Policy and Science

Lee R. Benaka

doi: https://doi.org/10.47886/9781888569124.ch33

The Sea Grant symposium on fish habitat that took place at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) included six panel discussions covering a range of topics from the need for outreach to the need for prioritization of essential fish habitat (EFH). This chapter describes in a general manner the comments made in each panel discussion and identifies an agenda for future habitat policy and research based on the issues raised at the Sea Grant symposium.

The first session of the symposium was made up of presentations that expressed differing views on the efficacy of the EFH policy created through the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, also called the Sustainable Fisheries Act). Although all presenters agreed that healthy levels of fish production were related to healthy habitat, some presenters suggested that the EFH policy represented an onerous burden to the fishing industry and was a weak regulatory tool that would be unable to effectively protect fish habitat from nonfishing pressures. The range of opinions expressed would have been wider had a greater variety of stakeholders—including numerous interest groups that until recently have been uninterested in fish habitat—been involved in the panel discussion. In addition to representatives of federal fishery management agencies, conservation organizations, and fishing industry groups, representatives of homebuilders associations, agricultural interests, ports, timber companies, universities, and other institutions have contrasting and thought-provoking perspectives on EFH. Future symposia and books on fish habitat and EFH should involve as large a variety of stakeholders as possible so that a wide range of viewpoints can be shared. Such forums should lead to greater understanding and cooperation among groups and interests that may be suspicious of each other’s motives.

The need to encourage participation and seek input from nonfishing interests was highlighted by one of the panel members in this first discussion. Conducting educational and outreach activities and setting clear policy priorities were cited as crucial to the EFH policy’s success. Another panel member asserted that public education can lead to public and political support of policies. According to this panel member, people need to learn where their seafood comes from, especially if they do not live in a coastal community with a vibrant fishing culture. One audience member stated the need for a habitat constituency to ensure funding. One possible large source of funding for habitat research could take the form of a Living Marine Resources Trust Fund (Brouha 1998), according to the audience member.

The third panel member cautioned that the rules to implement the EFH policy dwell on ecosystemlevel issues rather than focusing on threats to fish habitat from coastal development. As a result of this ecosystem focus, the need for control of coastal development is ignored and the fishing industry suffers from overregulation of fishing gear. The general issue of where to focus management and research resources was echoed by an audience member, who perceived that research on estuarine habitats was being emphasized at the expense of research on offshore habitats. According to this audience member, estuarine habitats are not of primary importance in all regions of the United States.

An audience member questioned how the importance of habitat could be best communicated to the public at large, and a panel member in response suggested that extension and communication professionals within the National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) could serve as valuable educational resources because of their close working relationships with coastal and inland natural resources stakeholders. Finally, one audience member stressed the need for the AFS to continue its leadership role in the area of fish habitat and EFH and praised Paul Brouha for making habitat a top priority during his tenure as Executive Director of the AFS.