Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation

Conserving Fish Habitat from the Seafood Perspective

Richard E. Gutting, Jr.

doi: https://doi.org/10.47886/9781888569124.ch4

Abstract .—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.