OBJECTIVE C - Management Action 2
Strengthen regulatory programs to protect vital fisheries habitats, which include submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds, and spawning areas by 1995.
Explanation:
Vital fisheries habitats are threatened by water quality degradation, physical destruction and the cumulative impacts of development in the region. Protecting areas in which aquatic organisms breed, live, and feed is essential to the successful propagation of many finfish and shellfish species. Increased protection for vital fisheries habitats will help maintain healthy fish populations for abundant commercial and recreational harvests.
Critical Steps:
- The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) would designate submerged aquatic vegetation and shellfish beds as vital fisheries habitats. MFC and the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) jointly would designate anadromous fish spawning areas, also as vital fisheries habitats. MFC recently has taken initial steps toward this action.
- The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) would delineate these vital fisheries habitats with assistance from the WRC and approval from the MFC. Delineation would be accomplished through intensive, site-specific evaluations as currently is the procedure for primary and secondary nurseries. To sufficiently protect vital fisheries, delineation boundaries would include adequate aquatic buffers.
- After vital fisheries habitats have been designated, appropriate use standards would be applied by regulatory commissions. Several practices already are restricted in these areas. For example, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) protects nurseries, shellfish beds and submerged aquatic vegetation from navigation channels and dredging for boat basins. The following practices would be considered for restriction by regulatory commissions in and near designated spawning areas, shellfish beds and submerged aquatic vegetation beds: long haul seine fishing, trawling, clam kicking, dredging, and boating practices that disturb habitats. These policies would build on a protection base provided by existing CAMA and MFC rules.
- The Environmental Management Commission (EMC ) would consider specific water quality protection for vital fisheries habitats. A supplemental water quality classification such as High Quality Water (HQW) could be used for designated spawning, shellfish and submerged aquatic vegetation areas, as is done for primary nurseries. In applying specific criteria or classifications, the EMC would consider maintaining appropriate levels for the following parameters:
a. In anadromous spawning areas - dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pH, suspended sediment, water flows, temperature, inorganic solids, salinity, lead, chlorine and aluminum.
b. For submerged aquatic vegetation - light transparency, salinity and nitrate levels.
c. For submerged aquatic vegetation and shellfish areas - concen-trations of inorganic suspended solids and nutrients.
- The CRC, EMC and MFC would coordinate policies and rules regarding vital fisheries habitats. The DCM, DEM, DMF, and the Department of Transportation (DOT) would enhance and coordinate research, monitoring, permitting and enforcement.
- Vital fisheries habitats would be considered and protected during the design and siting of agricultural, forestry and other best management practices. Point source dischargers would be located to minimize impacts on vital fisheries habitats.
- The DCM would consider and address potential cumulative impacts to designated vital fisheries in its Coastal Area Management Act permit review process.
- The cumulative impacts of fishing, boating and development on vital fisheries habitats would continue to be investigated by DCM, DEM, WRC, DMF, and appropriate federal agencies.
- DOT would aim to minimize the effects of its construction projects on designated vital fisheries habitats in the design phase.
Evaluation Methods
Inventories of designated areas, including acreage and assessments of habitat health, would be necessary to evaluate success of protection measures. Juvenile abundance, shellfish closures, and landings data would aid in habitat protection evaluation.
Costs and Economic Considerations
Delineation and designation of vital fisheries habitats will cost state and federal agencies an estimated $200,000 per year. This figure is equivalent to four additional staff members and includes the study of cumulative impacts from various sources of disturbance and other research, mapping, and development of specific rules. The main economic impacts of this Management Action will come from any restrictions on the siting or operation of point source pollution generators, from requirements for best management practices in agriculture, forestry and urban development, and from restrictions on fishing practices. Such restrictions or requirements might be recommended in areas likely to impact vital fisheries resources, but any recommendations could only be developed after the study of potential sources of disturbance are completed. In some areas, a large number of restrictions could potentially restrict development, reduce land values, make fishing, farming or forestry more expensive and therefore less profitable, or have other impacts. The potential for these impacts should be fully considered as any new rules are developed and applied. The potential economic costs of vital fisheries habitat protection are offset by many potential environmental and economic benefits. Higher quality fisheries habitats could help generate larger harvests or lower harvest costs over the long run throughout the APES region and perhaps beyond. Recreational fishing could also benefit to the extent that protection leads to improved fish stocks which may then lead to increased revenues from recreational fishermen. Finally, protected vital fisheries habitats could help provide important habitats for many other plants and animals as well as significant water quality benefits. Increases in environmental quality can also provide incentives that promote natural resource-based tourism. In weighing the costs and benefits, it is critical to consider the cost of delaying improvements to vital fisheries habitat protection. If destroyed, habitats may not be replaceable. Efforts to replace lost habitats in the future may be much more costly than efforts to protect them now. The effectiveness of this strategy depends on the successful implementation of other strategies in the CCMP. To achieve the long-term benefit of an increase in fish and shellfish populations, habitat protection needs to be complemented by strategies that protect from the overharvest of future surplus and protect water quality in general.
Funding Strategy
DMF would apply for funding from the Sport Fish Restoration Fund in order to support habitat mapping. Additional funding may be needed from the General Assembly.