Essential Fish Habitat Archives

NEFMC Initiates Action for HAPC in Southern New England; Discusses Great South Channel Habitat Management Area

February 18, 2022 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The New England Fishery Management Council will be developing a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) in Southern New England to place additional conservation focus on Council-managed species that rely on essential fish habitat (EFH) within this area, which is south of Cape Cod.

During its February 1-3, 2022 webinar meeting, the Council initiated a framework adjustment to pursue the new HAPC. It also:

Discussed the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area (HMA) and the clam industry’s request for additional access to the HMA beyond the current three exemption areas;

Received a summary of the white paper titled “Habitat Management Considerations for the Northern Edge of Georges Bank,” which will help inform future discussions if the Council decides to consider habitat management changes on the Northern Edge as a work priority down the road;
Received an update on offshore wind activities in the Greater Atlantic Region (see presentation);
Was informed that the Council was finalizing its comment letter on the Amitié Subsea Cable project, which runs between Massachusetts and France and the United Kingdom; and
Agreed to submit a comment letter on the Running Tide Technology project, which proposes to grow kelp on the northwestern portion of Fippennies Ledge in the Gulf of Maine.

Read the full release from the NEFMC

Alaskan Indigenous leaders fear impacts on salmon streams by mining project

January 27, 2022 — For Indigenous tribes living in Alaska’s remote Yukon-Kuskokwim region, southwest of the state, the future is bleak and uncertain. Tribal councils worry that plans to construct a 6,474-hectare (15,990 acres) open-pit gold mine near the Kuskokwim River watershed will have grave impacts on salmon habitats, their traditional ways of life and their health.

“This development could possibly destroy our livelihood, rivers and sea mammals that we depend on,” said Fred Phillips, representative of the Indigenous Village of Kwigillingok tribal council. According to him, tribes are not willing to take the risk.

The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (YKD) drainage is part of a rich biome encompassing coastal wetlands, tundra and mountains that supports the subsistence lifestyle of three distinct Alaskan Native groups; The Yup’ik, Cup’ik and Athabascan. To access the remote region, one needs to go by boat when the Kuskokwim River is flowing, or truck, snow machine and four-wheeler when the river is frozen.

Draining into the Bering Sea to the west, the Kuskokwim River, and many of its tributaries, are designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for Pacific Salmon. This is a legislation that manages marine fisheries in US waters.

The sprawling river is a vital source of food for the 38 communities that reside alongside it, serving as a running ground for the chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Given the remoteness of the region, the communities rely on subsistence fishing. Salmon makes up more than 50 percent of the tribe’s annual diet.

Read the full story at Mongabay

LINDA BEHNKEN & MIKE CONROY: Setting Biden’s seafood policy table

February 16, 2021 — Fishermen have been invited to be partners with the Biden administration on ocean policy and we are prepared to engage. Hard work, honest dialog and commitments to justice and equity will ensure that we remain at the table and not on the menu.

January’s executive order tackling climate change includes ambitious provisions that set agencies on a course to climate mitigation. Most importantly for America’s commercial fishing families, the order established two parallel processes to secure direct input from fishermen on, respectively the appropriate ways to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, an initiative known as 30×30, and ways to make our fisheries more resilient to climate change.

Fishing communities are precisely where policymakers should look for durable ocean-based climate solutions. Here are some starting points.

Today’s ocean is increasingly industrialized and our coasts are more densely occupied than ever. The historic pattern of ocean and coastal development exacerbated by climate change has resulted in reduced protections for fish habitat and serial declines of functional working waterfront. The administration has the ability to reverse both trends.

The U.S. should strengthen existing fisheries habitat protection processes by requiring federal agencies to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH consultations are regularly conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), yet NOAA’s recommendations are routinely ignored by other agencies. Executive action requiring permitting agencies to incorporate NOAA’s EFH conservation recommendations into their decisions would significantly benefit fish habitat, fisheries and biodiversity.

Read the full opinion piece at The Hill

Summary of Action Items for the 178th Meeting of the WPRFMC

June 5, 2019 — The following was published by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

The 178th meeting of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council will convene June 25-27, 2019, at the Laniakea YWCA, Fuller Hall, Honolulu, Hawai’i. The Council will consider and may take action on the issues summarized below, including any public comments on them. Written public comments should be received by the Council’s executive director by 5 p.m. (Hawai’i time), Thursday, June 20, 2019, by postal mail, fax or email as indicated below. After June 20, it is the submitter’s responsibility to provide at least 40 copies of the written comment to Council staff at the Council meeting.

Mail: Ms. Kitty M. Simonds
Executive Director
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400
Honolulu, HI 96813

FAX: (808) 522-8226
E-mail: info.wpcouncil@noaa.gov

Action Item Summaries
A
1. Specifying Harvest Limits for the Main Hawaiian Islands Kona Crab

The Council will consider specifying multi-year harvest limits for the main Hawaiian Island Kona crab for fishing years 2020-2023. The best scientific information available is the 2019 benchmark stock assessment with catch projection to 2026[1]. Based on this updated information, the maximum sustainable yield was estimated to be at 73,609 pounds and the overfishing limit at 33,989 pounds. The Council’s P* and SEEM* Working Groups and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) evaluated the scientific, social, ecological, economic, and management uncertainties and recommended a risk level for the Council to consider. The SEEM* working group used a new standardized process developed by the Social Science Planning Committee (SSPC), in which the social, ecological, and economic dimension is used to determine the risk of overfishing, and the monitoring and compliance/management criteria are used to determine management uncertainty. The risk of overfishing informs the Council’s consideration of annual catch limit (ACL) specification, and the management uncertainty informs the Council’s consideration in setting the annual catch target (ACT).

The Council will evaluate the following options:
1) No Action. No harvest limits will be specified for fishing year 2020-2023.
2) Specify the previous harvest limit at 3,500 pounds using the 2015 assessment (Thomas et al. 2015) for fishing year 2020-2023.
3) Specify the ACL equal to the acceptable biological catch (ABC) at P*=38 percent at 30,802 pounds and set an ACT at P*=30 percent at 28,324 pounds based on the P* and SEEM* Analysis using the 2019 benchmark stock assessment.
4) Specify the ACL equal to the ABC at P*=38 percent at 30,802 pounds and set an ACT 10 percent lower than the SEEM* analysis at P*=20 percent at 25,491 pounds using the 2019 benchmark stock assessment
5) Specify the ACL equal to the ABC at P*=38 percent at 30,802 pounds and set an ACT 20 percent lower than the SEEM* analysis at P*=10 percent at 21,243 pounds using the 2019 benchmark stock assessment

At its 178th meeting, the Council will consider taking final action to specify the harvest limits and the accountability measure that will prevent the fishery from overfishing the stock.

citation
[1]Kapur MR, Fitchett MD, Yau AJ, Carvalho F. 2019. 2018 Benchmark Stock Assessment of Main Hawaiian Islands Kona Crab. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-PIFSC-77, 114 p. doi:10.25923/7wf2-f040

B
2. Hawai’i Fishery Ecosystem Plan Amendment to Precious Coral Essential Fish Habitat

The Council at its 173rd meeting in June 2018 directed staff to develop options to redefine essential fish habitat (EFH) and any habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for precious corals in Hawai’i for Council consideration for a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) amendment. EFH information was reviewed through the 2015 and 2016 annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report cycles and an options paper was developed for the 174th meeting in October 2018.

New observations of precious corals have occurred throughout the region, with research concentrated in the Hawai’i Archipelago. Observations in the territories and of the larval phase of precious corals are rare or nonexistent. However, new information exists to refine the habitat characteristics and geographic extent of deep- and shallow-water precious coral EFH in the Hawai’i Archipelago. Narrative information on which the EFH designations are based and information to fulfill the EFH requirements of fishery management plans may also be used to update the archipelagic FEPs. The redefinition of precious corals EFH is framed in three separate actions: refinement of deep-water species complex EFH; refinement of shallow-water precious coral species complex EFH; and update of the narrative information.

The Council at its 174th meeting reviewed the following options for each of the three actions:
Action 1 – Update EFH for deep-water precious coral species
Options
1) No change (status quo)
2) Revise EFH by depth range
3) Refine the geographic boundary of existing precious coral beds
4) Refine the geographic boundary of existing beds and add new beds

Action 2 – Update EFH for shallow-water precious coral species:
Options
1) No change (status quo)
2) Update geographic extent and habitat characteristics.

Action 3 – Update EFH narrative information
Options
1) Update the FEP narrative information on EFH
2) Do not update the FEP narrative information on EFH

The Council took initial action at its 174th meeting directing staff to prepare an amendment to the Hawai’i FEP to revise the Precious Corals EFH and selected the following preliminary preferred options:

Action 1 – Option 4: Refine the geographic boundary of existing beds and add new beds.
Action 2 – Option 2: Update geographic extent and habitat characteristics.
Action 3 – Option 1: Update the FEP narrative information on EFH.
At its 178th meeting, the Council will consider taking final action to amend the Precious Coral EFH section of the Hawai’i FEP.

C
3. Managing Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtle Interactions in the Hawai’i-Based Shallow-Set Longline Fishery

The Council at its 173rd meeting in June 2018 recommended amending the Pelagic FEP to establish a management framework for the Hawai’i shallow-set longline fishery that consists of 1) annual limits on the number North Pacific loggerhead and leatherback turtle interactions consistent with the anticipated level of annual interactions that is set forth in the current valid biological opinion (BiOp) and 2) individual trip interaction limits for loggerhead and leatherback turtles. The Council also recommended specifications under the framework as follows: 1) annual limits of 37 North Pacific loggerhead turtles and 21 leatherback turtles; and 2) individual trip limit of five North Pacific loggerhead turtles.

The Council’s recommendation for specifying the loggerhead and leatherback turtle annual limits was based on the anticipated level of interactions analyzed in the biological evaluation (BE) initiating reconsultation of the Hawai’i shallow-set longline fishery under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation process. As part of its recommendation, the Council noted that it would review its recommendation if the new BiOp from the ongoing consultation results in a jeopardy decision or otherwise results in a different incidental take statement for North Pacific loggerheads or leatherbacks. The new BiOp was originally scheduled to be completed by Oct. 31, 2018, but the draft was not completed in time for the October SSC and Council meeting. Following the October meetings, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) set a new timeline to deliver the draft BiOp by Jan. 31, 2019, and a final BiOp by Feb. 28, 2019. Due to the federal government shutdown, the draft BiOp timeline was further delayed to March 25, 2019.

At its October 2018 meeting, the SSC received a presentation from the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) on the population viability analysis (PVA) for loggerhead and leatherback turtles prepared for the ongoing Section 7 consultation. The modeling was conducted in response to a request by the PIRO Protected Resources Division for the purpose of examining the long-term viability of the species. PVA results indicate that the North Pacific loggerhead population has a mean estimated population growth rate of 2.4 precent, while the Western Pacific leatherback turtle population has a mean estimated population growth rate of 5.3 percent. The growth rates reflect long-term population trends based on nesting beach data representing approximately 52 percent of the North Pacific loggerhead turtle population and approximately 85 percent of the Western Pacific leatherback turtle population.

The Council at its 174th meeting in October 2018 reviewed the approach to the assessment for the BiOp and considered the SSC’s report regarding the PVA. The Council recommended convening an interim Council meeting, if needed, to review draft BiOp and consider any revisions to its June 2018 recommendations based on the BiOp and stated that it will reconsider a specification of leatherback individual trip limits if necessary.

The Council convened its 175th Meeting on Dec. 17, 2018, to consider final action on additional mitigation measures for the Western Pacific leatherback turtles in advance of the draft BiOp completion, taking into consideration the results of the PVA model indicating a continuing long-term declining trend of the population. The Council deferred action until the draft BiOp and more complete information on the impacts of the fishery on the Western Pacific leatherback turtles are available to fully inform the Council decision.

The draft BiOp was provided to the Council on March 28, 2019. The Council convened its 177th meeting on April 12, 2019, to review its recommendations on the management framework from the 173rd meeting for consistency with the draft BiOp and to consider taking final action on the management framework. The draft BiOp concluded that the shallow-set longline fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species, including loggerhead and leatherback turtles. However, the draft BiOp also contained Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) that were inconsistent with the Council’s recommended framework. The Council at its 177th meeting maintained its management framework recommendation from the 173rd Council meeting, additionally recommended an individual trip limit of two leatherback turtles and requested that NMFS consider revising the RPMs for consistency with the Council recommended action.

At its 178th meeting, the Council will review the final BiOp for consistency with the 177th meeting recommendations and may consider taking additional final action if any discrepancies remain with the previously recommended action.

D
4. US Participating Territory Longline Bigeye Catch/Allocation Limits

Bigeye tuna comprises a Pacific-wide population that is internationally managed and assessed as separate stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Association (IATTC), respectively. The best scientific information available indicates that both stocks are not subject to overfishing nor are they overfished, according to the stock status determination reference points in the FEP for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. The scientific bodies of the WCPFC and IATTC will consider new benchmark stock assessments for both stocks in 2020.

In December 2018, the WCPFC agreed on CMM 2018-01, which limits the US longline bigeye tuna catch in the WCPO to 3,554 metric tons (mt) in 2019 and 2020. CMM 2018-01 does not establish an individual limit on the amount of bigeye tuna that may be harvested annually in the Convention Area by Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Participating Territories, including American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Limits are not provided to the SIDS and Participating Territories in recognition of their fisheries development aspirations.

In 2014, Amendment 7 to the Council’s Pelagic FEP was approved and implemented (50 CFR 665.819). It established the territorial catch/effort and allocation limit measure that provides NMFS with authority to:
Specify annual catch or effort limits for a US Participating Territory, as recommended by the Council, not to exceed any WCPFC-adopted limits;
Specify a limit recommended by the Council authorizing a US Participating Territory to allocate a portion of that specified catch or effort limit to eligible US vessels through a specified fishing agreement; and
Review and approve specified fishing agreements for consistency with the Pelagic FEP and other applicable laws.

The Council must annually review the conservation status of the fishery resource, the needs of fishing communities dependent on the particular fishery resource and consistency with the Pelagics FEP and other applicable laws in considering its recommendations for territorial catch, effort and allocation limits as well as its review of specified fishing agreements. Amendment 7 also established a territorial longline bigeye tuna catch limit of 2,000 mt for each territory and an allocation limit of 1,000 mt for each territory. At its 173rd meeting in June 2018, the Council took final action to modify the territorial catch/effort and allocation limit measure and implementing regulations. Should NMFS approve the action, it will amend the Pelagic FEP to remove the requirement for establishing separate total catch or effort limits for the US Participating Territories in order to establish an allocation limit and also would allow multi-year limits. The Council would annually review any established limits to determine whether the best available scientific information or the needs of fishing communities warrant modifying or rescinding such limits.

At its 178th meeting, the Council will consider recommending territorial bigeye tuna catch and/or allocation limits to take effect beginning in 2020, given the Council’s recommended modification of the territorial catch, effort and allocation limit measure. The Council will consider the following options:
1. No catch or allocation limits (no action)
2. 2,000 mt catch and 1,000 mt allocation limits
3. No catch limit and up to 2,000 mt allocation limits

The Council will also consider the fishing years in which the limits will take effect or expire, in consideration of the requirement for annual review, availability of new scientific information and potential for multi-year limits.

NOAA Fisheries Seeks Comments on Notice of Availability for the New England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2

October 6, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Today, we published a Notice of Availability for the New England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2.

We are seeking public comment on an action that would:

Revise the essential fish habitat designations for all New England Fishery Management Council-managed species and life stages;
Add Habitat Areas of Particular Concern to highlight especially important habitat areas;
Revise the spatial management system within the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and the southern New England area;
Establish two Dedicated Habitat Research Areas;
Revise or implement seasonal spawning protection measures; and
Add system for reviewing and updating the proposed measures.

Read the Notice as published in the Federal Register, and submit your comments through the online portal. You may also submit comments through regular mail to: John Bullard, Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

The comment period is open through December 5, 2017.

Retiring NOAA exec has impossible to-do list: whale deaths, Rafael decision, more

September 29, 2017 — GLOUCESTER, Mass. — John Bullard knows he has a daunting list of tasks to complete before he walks away, in about three months, from his position as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) top decision maker for the northeastern part of the US.

It’s urgent for NOAA to determine why so many right whales have recently died, take action to protect scallop populations in the northern Gulf of Maine and advance the Omnibus Habitat Amendment, a six-volume document that’s been in the works for 10 years and would address essential fish habitat as well as permanent and seasonal closed areas, he believes. But that’s just a few of the jobs he told Undercurrent News he wants to see to completion before leaving.

The announcement, made in July, that Bullard will retire as the administrator of NOAA Fisheries’ Greater Atlantic Region on Jan. 5 puts a cap on a recent five-year stint at the agency, which he told Undercurrent during a break at the New England Fishery Management Council meeting, is three years longer than he said he told his wife he would stay in the job. He said he has not yet decided what he will spend his time on after that.

“I’m retiring,” he reiterated when pressed. “I’m retiring.”

Neither will NOAA, which advertised Bullard’s job for a month starting on Aug. 7, say how many candidates it’s now considering to fill his post or suggest when a successor might be named. It’s the agency’s policy to “not comment on ongoing hiring actions,” a spokesperson said.

Whoever is awarded the position – one of five regional leadership positions for NOAA — will have the daunting job of working with the fishery councils to manage 44 fish stocks, including two in New England (scallops and lobster) that are worth more than $500 million per year each, according to the agency.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

STATEMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION’S NORTHEAST CANYONS AND SEAMOUNTS MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATION

September 19th, 2016 — The following was released by The Seafood Harvesters of America:

The Seafood Harvesters of America represents commercial fishermen from Maine to Florida, Texas to the West Coast and north to the Gulf of Alaska and beyond. Everything we do in our work as fishermen and in our advocacy for accountable and sustainable fishery practices is based on our nation’s foundational fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA. Commercial fishing is not a right, it is a privilege bestowed by the laws of our country. We take that privilege very seriously.

And with privilege comes obligation. A president has an obligation to uphold the laws of this land before exercising the privilege of his office. Exercised incompletely and with little regard for science – and the public’s informed input – MSA is quickly reduced to little more than an instrument of punishment to be taken to us when it is politically expedient. The Act is capable of so much more and we are deserving of so much better.

Magnuson-Stevens allows for identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and regulatory mechanisms for preventing fishing in areas designated as EFH. In the Northeast we have just completed a 10-year process working closely with the New England Fishery Management Council to designate – again, within and under the MSA – extensive areas for EFH protection. Voluntarily and in a deeply collaborative fashion, we have taken ourselves “off the water” across vast areas of the Atlantic seaboard, from the Carolinas to the Canadian border. This has not been easy, this has not been without pain, but it has taken place within the spirit and the letter of the law that we live by.

That’s why we are so disappointed at the course chosen by the Administration in setting aside the MSA and declaring this Connecticut-sized marine monument. Although we applaud the fact that oil drilling will not be allowed in the area covered by the monument, the Administration has chosen to disregard the fact that commercial fishing will also be prevented. MSA provides a framework that we all could have worked within together, to prevent drilling and other potentially harmful activities while allowing for continued, well-managed commercial fishing.

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument designation takes fishermen off the water across vast stretches of traditional fishing grounds unnecessarily, without due consideration and collaboration. It is a sad day when the creative potential of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is set aside in a unilateral fashion through executive action in favor of a declaration that threatens severe unintended consequences – not just for New England fishermen but for the foundational integrity of the regional fishery management council process and our nation’s premier fisheries law.

Eileen Sobeck Comments on Essential Fish Habitat

July 15, 2016 — Fish habitat earned legal respect 20 years ago when Congress added it to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation’s main fisheries law. We chatted about the role of Essential Fish Habitat with Eileen Sobeck, who has led NOAA Fisheries since 2014.

Why is habitat important to the fish we catch?

Fish aren’t just sitting there in the ocean waiting to be extracted. They are living in an environment, in a habitat, just like terrestrial species. To pretend that there will always be fish out there if their habitat is destroyed or polluted or otherwise compromised would be naïve.

What does habitat mean to you?

I’ve been snorkeling on coral reefs since childhood. I’ve been lucky enough to go diving and snorkeling all across the United States and the world. Just last month in Hawaii, I managed most mornings to go snorkeling outside my hotel. You can’t help but understand the concept of habitat supporting an entire ecosystem when you see a coral reef.

Read the full story at The Fishing Wire

An Essential Part of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Reaches 20 Years

February 29, 20156 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

As we celebrate 40 years of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we reflect on how one revision to the Act has resulted in 20 years of protection for habitats that are vital to our nation’s fisheries. Join us this year in honoring the remarkable efforts and accomplishments through the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Program, which was mandated by Congress in 1996.

Healthy Fish Habitat is Truly Essential

Healthy habitat provides the foundation for productive fisheries and resilient coastal communities. Fish habitats provide homes to many of our important commercial and recreational species, and also protect our coastal communities by acting as buffers from storms and wave damage. These benefits are linked, because the areas where fish grow and thrive are often close to shore, where thousands of fishers work and millions of people live.

NOAA’s EFH mandate has charged us to seek out the best available science to understand how and why habitats are important to our species. To date, NOAA Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils have described habitats for more than 1,000 species.

Collaboration is Key

EFH has saved large amounts of both habitat and money. Together, NOAA Fisheries and the regional councils have succeeded in protecting more than 800 million acres of habitat. That’s the size of eight Californias! Plus, NOAA Fisheries has worked with state and federal agencies to improve the design, construction, and operation of hundreds of coastal and marine infrastructure projects. These collaborations have reduced habitat impacts and saved many millions of taxpayer dollars by inspiring greater attention to smart development that allows both ecosystems and economies to thrive.

Thankfully, a determined group of people made EFH a reality 20 years ago, and the future of sustainable fisheries will rely heavily on its continued success. In our reflections, we also have an opportunity to look forward, refine our approach, and make EFH even more effective. Today, we invite you to learn more and peruse stories of how EFH works—and works well.