EFH in the News!
- Fish habitat debate logs lots of mail [Anchorage Daily News, 4/11/04]
- Feds Eye Havens for Coral [Anchorage Daily News, 4/5/04]
- EFH Public Comment Meeting (audio) [Alaska Public Radio News, 4/1/04]
- Action Alert! - Help Protect Essential Fish Habitat!
In February 2005, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council has closed over 60% of the Aleutian Islands region to bottom trawling - approximately 375,000 square nautical miles of Alaskan waters (an area twice the size of California). The devastating harm caused by destructive fishing gear, including "clear-cutting" of old growth coral by bottom trawl gear has been well established [add citation to MCBI's Changing Gear report], so this is a tremendous conservation success.
However, this ban probably demonstrates that a change of this magnitude was needed for the fishery to be in minimal compliance with the law. It should prevent the pollock fishery from further expansion into critical coral areas. As such, it should reduce coral by-catch. However it enshrines the status quo by only closing areas to expansion of the fishery. In other words, it does not close any currently open fishing areas, nor does it change the level of overfishing or other by-catch that is contributing to the numerous species declines in the North Pacific. The outcome does apply a precautionary approach, and provides a step toward ecosystem-based management needed in the North Pacific to reverse the declines of its marine mammals, seabirds, as well as other plants and animals.
Unfortunately, the Aleutian Islands are sea mounts (by another name just because they rise above the ocean), which are increasingly considered the most fragile and productive coral, and thus fish habitat areas. Further, the areas near the islands are among the key places where sea birds and marine mammal forage. In an ideal world, bottom trawling should not be allowed anywhere. But for the fact that the areas to remain open are agreed to be those places already clear cut by trawling, or at least already trawl damaged, we should not be too happy with where the open areas are.
The no-trawl zone protects a significant part of the deep water corals near the Aleutians. However, we still have just as much to protect on the shelf west of the Pribiloff Islands, and elsewhere in the Aleutians. In other words, we still have our work cut out for us. The good news is that we have now set a precedent for addressing this threat -- and until bottom trawling goes the way of drift nets and is banned for good, perhaps we can confine this dirty fishery practice to the places it has already impacted.
Alphabet Soup
EFH – Essential Fish Habitat
EIS – Environmental Impact Statement
HAPC – Habitat Area of Particular Concern
MPA – Marine Protected Area
MRV – Marine Reserve
|
Six hundred feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean grow deep water corals whose splendor rivals tropical reefs of the Caribbean. These magnificent animals create living seafloor habitat that provides nurseries, places to feed, shelter from currents and predators, and spawning areas for fish and many other species of marine life. Perhaps the oldest animals on the planet, these long-lived corals have evolved in one of the most stable habitats on earth, too deep to be affected by tides and waves or sunlight. Unfortunately they are not safe from bottom trawling. From the Bering Sea to Baja, cold water corals are being systematically destroyed by bottom trawlers in search of rockfish and other groundfish.
Bottom trawling destroys far more ocean habitat than any other fishing practice on the Pacific West Coast. In this fishing method, large weighted nets are dragged across the ocean floor, clear cutting a swath of habitat in their wake. These scars will take centuries to heal. Hard corals in the Pacific have been dated to be hundreds of years old with growth rates as slow as one centimeter a year, yet these pillars of the ecosystem can be decimated by one swipe of a bottom trawl. There are documented single bottom trawls in Alaska that removed more than 20 tons of corals.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, bottom trawling reduces the complexity, productivity, and biodiversity of benthic habitats most severely in areas of coral and sponge. When disturbed by bottom trawling, as much as 90 percent of a coral colony perishes, and up to 67 percent of sponges are damaged. As the net drags the floor, all sea creatures in its path—fish, animals, sea mammals, and plants—are indiscriminately captured. The trawlers keep the targeted commercial species and discard the remaining, unwanted fish and animals. These unwanted creatures are known as bycatch. Virtually all bycatch is dead or dying as it is shoveled back into the sea.
Marine habitat such as kelp forests, rocky pinnacles, corals and sponges provide fish and crab the key necessities of life: food, shelter, and breeding grounds. Recognizing the importance of habitat to the health of fish species and the coastal communities and commercial fisheries that rely on them, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ensure the designation and protection of “essential fish habitat” (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Act describes EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”
Here in the North Pacific, federal fisheries managers are working to find appropriate methods to designate essential fish habitat and ways to reduce damage from fishing gear to habitat. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council recently analyzed a range of alternatives in an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the designation of EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). HAPCs can be types of habitat like corals, or specific sites like the Sitka Pinnacles. These habitats may be given elevated importance based on their significant ecological function, rarity, or sensitivity to human disturbance.
The first step in the analysis was describing the habitats used by fish and crab species. Next, the North Pacific Council looked at the impacts of fishing gears on habitat and found ways to design fisheries plans that minimize damage to sensitive habitats. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for EFH is completed and the Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is currently revising the EIS to incorporate the preferred alternatives. The preliminary DEIS evaluates three actions: 1) describe and identify EFH, 2) adopt an approach to identify habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), and 3) minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH. The DEIS for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska is available on the web, and the DEIS will be available for public comment by January 16, 2004.
Why Habitat Conservation?
Marine life on the ocean floor (such as corals and sponges) and physical structures (such as boulder fields and cobble) provide important habitat for fish and invertebrates. Fish and crabs, especially young ones, hide among corals, sea anemones, and tubeworms to escape predators. Damage to habitat threatens the diversity and integrity of marine ecosystems, the sustainability of fisheries, and ultimately, the well-being of our coastal communities who rely on them.
The Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Oceana, The Ocean Conservancy and other marine conservation groups are particularly concerned about the effects of bottom trawling on sea floor habitats. The effects of bottom trawling include direct damage to sensitive habitat areas by crushing corals and sponges, overturning boulders, or suspending sediments, toxins, and nutrients into the water column by plowing and scraping the sea floor. The alteration of the sea floor community by bottom trawls can cause a shift in the type of species that inhabit those areas, altering both species abundance and diversity.
Concern over the harm from bottom trawling has led Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway to take immediate steps to protect similar habitat. Such concerns have led to a historic agreement amongst scientists worldwide. On February 15, a coalition of scientists released the “Scientists’ Statement on Protecting the World’s Deep-sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems.” This statement, signed by 1,136 marine scientists from 69 countries, calls upon governments worldwide to protect deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems from destructive fishing practices.
What are Local Marine Conservation Groups Doing?
Marine conservation groups have participated on a variety of levels with the North Pacific Council EFH committee focusing on the essential fish habitat environmental impact statement. Local groups are working hard on keeping this a public process that involves community citizens, fishermen, industry, and conservation groups. In the end, we hope to create a working program for identifying, protecting and restoring essential fish habitat that will promote ecosystem health and sustainable fisheries.
What is the State Doing?
At the state level, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) tasked a team of its staff to develop a comprehensivereport to the Alaska Board of Fisheries on Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and Marine Reserves (MRV). This report reviewed the scientific basis for MPAs and MRVs and recommended a process for the review of marine reserve proposals submitted to the Board of Fisheries.
There is a critical distinction between the MPA’s and MRV’s. A commonly accepted definition of an MPA is an area designated with year-round protections to enhance conservation of marine or cultural resources. The actual protection within MPAs varies considerably; most allow some fishing while prohibiting activities such as ocean dumping or oil and gas drilling. There are already several de facto MPAs in Alaska, such as the Nearshore Bristol Bay Closure Area (prohibits bottom trawling to protect crab habitat) and the Sitka Pinnacles (designed to protect nest guarding lingcod). These are currently “marine managed areas” and are not officially designated as MPAs. Marine Reserves are ocean areas completely protected from all extractive activities. There are no official marine reserves in the North Pacific, but no transit zones around Steller sea lion rookeries and military areas in the Aleutian Islands meet the definition of marine reserves (subsistence harvest is not restricted in these areas).
In addition to reviewing the scientific basis of reserves and protected areas and recommending a public process for their review, the state report also included an inventory of MPAs which exist in Alaska, a review of programs under federal and state jurisdiction, and goals and uses of MPAs in Alaska, including the identification of high value, sensitive areas that exist and what, if any, restrictions might be appropriate.
In September 2003, the Board of Fisheries determined that there will be no state process at this time for reviewing marine protected area or marine reserve proposals. This decision was spurred by a general reluctance by members of industry and the current Board of Fisheries to consider sensitive marine habitats for special conservation measures.
What Can You Do to Protect Alaska’s Oceans?
Get involved! Many fishermen and community residents are knowledgeable about marine habitat and its vital role in maintaining productive oceans. Some believe additional habitat protection may be needed to maintain sustainable fisheries; others believe existing measures are appropriate and sufficient. The knowledge and experiences of people who work and live near the ocean can help decision-makers create better and more effective plans for marine habitat protection.
Thank you for letting the Fisheries Service know that you support protecting a wide range of Alaska’s marine habitats from industrial fishing practices, encouraging the Fisheries Service to follow the recommendations of the nation’s leading scientists and adopt new management measures that include a combination of marine protected areas, gear conversions, and reductions in total allowable catch.
The public comment deadline for the draft EFH EIS was April 15th. The Fisheries Service will now compile the public comments received to make a final selection of status quo or incorporating additional habitat protection measures. The final EIS will be released in June 2005. Please continue to visit our website for future updates on Essential Fish Habitat.
Download a copy of the DEIS here.
Timeframe of the EIS process:
- November 2003: Call for public proposals for coral/rockfish and seamount habitat.
- January 2004: Official draft EIS released by agency for 90-day public comment, Coral/rockfish and seamount proposals received by the North Pacific Council for their review.
- June 2005: Final EIS released by agency and final selection of status quo or any habitat protection measures are made by fishery managers.
- August 2006: Final decision for habitat protection implemented by agency (If the preferred selection is status quo there will be nothing to implement), implement coral/rockfish and seamount measures if any are selected.
Thank you for taking the time to be an active participant in the EFH public process!
Other Opportunities to Protect Habitat - Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
The Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the Alaska Marine Conservation Council have also submitted proposals asking the Fisheries Service to adopt regulations that protect smaller areas of extremely rare and diverse habitats. These include one of the world’s largest submarine canyons, specific tracts of coral and sponge in the Aleutian Islands, and seamounts throughout the North Pacific.
Tell the Fisheries Service to adopt protective measures for these Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.
To learn more, visit North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Proposals for Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. Download HAPC maps (pdf, 1.2MB).
For More Information ...
For more information on Essential Fish Habitat, visit:
|
