Interview with Thomas E. Bigford, NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation
 

As Water Log reported in Issue 19:1, the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) amendments have taken effect around the nation. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Habitat Conservation has led the effort to inform state and federal agencies of the requirements and impacts of EFH. Thomas Bigford, Chief of the Habitat Protection Division at the Office of Habitat Conservation, tells Water Log about NMFS' role and the future of EFH.

Water Log: What are the NMFS and the Office of Habitat Conservation's roles in implementing the Congressional EFH mandate?

Bigford: The NMFS has a major role in implementing the EFH mandate. The agency developed guidelines to assist in the description and identification of EFH and leads the effort to develop the new EFH consultation process to apply EFH information to state and federal decision making. The fishery management plan amendment process was supported by collaboration with eight fishery management councils, our partners in state and federal agencies, representatives from fisheries and other industry sectors, and staff at NMFS laboratories and offices. Together, information was collected on more than 700 managed species and their habitats, resulting in summaries and maps for the EFH amendments. The consultation process depends on strong collaboration, especially from NMFS regional offices, the primary contacts with state and federal agencies. The Office of Habitat Conservation has maintained an active role in EFH-related issues since before its enactment, when we envisioned that Congress would add significant habitat language. Since the 1996 amendments, the Office has worked closely with the NMFS regional offices and Councils to coordinate the EFH program. Specifically, the Office has coordinated several national teams to provide input on the guidelines, to develop companion guidance packages, to initiate discussions with agencies about consultation, and to provide general support on technical issues such as tracking consultations and developing GIS map products to post on websites of NMFS and its partners.
 

Water Log: Are federal agencies and the public aware of the EFH mandate and the importance of habitat to the nation's fisheries?

Bigford: We hope so, but NMFS will continue its outreach efforts to improve public and private sector awareness. The rulemaking process in 1996-1998 was very public, including more than 30 public meetings around the nation. Through mailings and special meetings, NMFS and the councils invited direct participation from all affected sectors, including fishing and non-fishing industries. We produced a general EFH brochure in 1998, are producing two focused pamphlets this fall, and are developing website products for public use. We've also met with federal and state agencies across the country to explain the EFH consultation process and its effect on their programs.
 

Water Log: The first step in increasing attention to habitat is identification of EFH. Recognizing the broad definition of EFH, have the Councils prevailed in identifying the particular EFH areas?

Bigford: Yes, most Councils identified EFH for each species and for each life stage. There were some information gaps for species that will require further attention in the next round of EFH amendments. After gathering the best available scientific information, Councils used a variety of criteria to ensure that they emphasized those areas with the highest apparent value to managed species. Since each life stage occurs in a discrete niche and more than 700 species are under federal management, it is no surprise that the EFH designations span many of our marine, estuarine, and riverine areas. Over the next few years, as information improves, EFH designations will be refined and perhaps narrowed geographically. In the interim, most Councils are using the "habitat area of particular concern" (HAPC) provision in the EFH guidelines to focus research and management attention on discrete areas or habitat types that are most vulnerable, rare, or imperiled. In fact, several Councils are involved in identifying HAPCs or a type of special management areas: the Gulf of Mexico Council is considering the use of reserves and the New England Council is considering a proposed HAPC for juvenile Atlantic cod. Much work remains but the Councils have done an excellent job of identifying EFH in a careful, scientifically defensible approach that reflects the risk averse intentions of Congress and the agency's mandate to maintain sustainable fisheries.
 

Water Log: After EFH is identified, federal agencies must consult with the NMFS and Councils regarding activities in these areas. Has this consultation component been successful so far?

Bigford: Yes. The process began when EFH amendments to fishery management plans were approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Some EFH designations have only been in place for a few months now, so it will be a while before federal agencies fully incorporate the EFH consultation process into their routine operations. The Office of Habitat Conservation has been meeting with headquarters offices in other agencies to ensure that they are aware of the law and familiar with the consultation requirements. We've also been working with major industry sectors like the home builders, aquaculturists, and oil and gas sectors to prepare them for EFH consultation. Most importantly, we've made tremendous progress on a variety of agreements with agencies to narrow our consultation focus on those actions that pose the greatest threats to EFH, adding efficiency to the program and confirming our commitment to use existing environmental review processes. Because NMFS and other federal agencies are relying heavily on existing environmental review processes like NEPA and the 10/404 permit reviews, we believe the consultation process is working without slowing down public or private sector decisions.
 

Water Log: Generally, the Magnuson Act mandates NMFS to manage fisheries in federal waters. How does EFH apply to state waters?

Bigford: The Magnuson Act applies throughout the range of managed species, often extending into state waters for some life stage. The Council amendments designated EFH in state and federal waters, analyzed the full range of possible threats to those habitats, and recommended conservation measures to minimize threats to EFH. Throughout that process, there was very little difference between state or federal waters. However, there is an important distinction in the EFH consultation arena. While federal agencies must consult with NMFS on actions that may adversely affect EFH, state agencies are not required to notify NMFS but we still have the obligation to provide conservation recommendations. When dealing with the effects of fishing activities that may affect EFH, our regulatory authority applies only to fishing impacts in federal waters.
 

Water Log: Environmental groups believe that the EFH mandate is not strong enough because it does not preclude those activities that adversely impact it. On the other hand, many user groups, especially fishing communities, are worried that implementation of EFH will limit their ability to maintain a livelihood. Can you comment on these concerns?

Bigford: We have tried to give full consideration to all concerns in our implementation of the EFH mandate. First, the mandate required NMFS and the Councils to assemble the most complete set of habitat documents ever provided to decision makers. Second, the mandate requires federal agencies to give greater weight to fish habitat concerns. Third, Congress required that this process be well documented and public, thereby improving public participation in decisions affecting fish habitat. Each of those improvements builds on the traditional natural resource stewardship role that NMFS has been performing for nearly 30 years under the Clean Water Act and other laws. There's also dozens of fishery management actions that have closed areas, restricted gears, or imposed other measures that benefitted habitat. When added to our historic roles, the EFH provisions should help the environment, the fish that depend on healthy habitats, recreational and commercial fishing industries that require sustainable stocks, and coastal communities.
 

Water Log: Finally, what will be the greatest challenge in implementing EFH into fisheries management?

Bigford: Undoubtedly, our first major hurdle was to assemble the best available scientific information to incorporate habitat perspectives into fisheries management. Congress also requires that NMFS consult with all agencies whose actions may adversely affect EFH, which could potentially increase the total number of consultations above historic levels. Our challenge in that arena is to develop agreements with other agencies to limit detailed consultations to those activities with significant potential to adversely affect EFH. One final challenge is to provide full participation of our partners and colleagues in other agencies, states, and the private sector. Each of these challenges will continue for many years to come.
 

For more information on EFH, visit the Office of Habitat Conservation homepage at http://www.nmfs.gov/habitat/ and the Legal Program site for a slide show describing EFH at http://www.olemiss.edu/pubs/waterlog/slide.htm .

University of Mississippi