Report from the National 

Essential Fish Habitat Summit

Terra Lederhouse, Tony Marshak, Lauren Latchford, 

Rebecca Peters, and Katie Latanich

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-3

August 2017

Report from the National Essential Fish Habitat Summit

Terra Lederhouse, Tony Marshak, Lauren Latchford, Rebecca Peters, and Katie Latanich 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-3

August 2017

U.S. Department of Commerce

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Benjamin Friedman, Acting NOAA Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

Recommended citation:

Lederhouse, T., T. Marshak, L. Latchford, R. Peters, and K. Latanich. 2017. Report from the 

National Essential Fish Habitat Summit. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OHC-3, 44 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Kara Meckley

NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1315 East-West Highway SSMC3/14100

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or online at:

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/
iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1

EFH Summit Objectives and Terms of Reference.......................................................................................1

EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Identification and Review..................................................2

Regional/Council Similarities and Differences ...............................................................................3

EFH Designations and Data Challenges..........................................................................................3

Technology and Partnerships for Better EFH Designations............................................................6

Regional Approaches to EFH 5-year Reviews ................................................................................7

Additional Issues..............................................................................................................................9

Conclusions......................................................................................................................................9

Practicability and Effectiveness.................................................................................................................10

Key Themes of Discussion ............................................................................................................10

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................12

EFH Consultations, Effective Council-Agency Communication, and Opportunities for 

Collaboration..............................................................................................................................................13

Introduction to the EFH Consultation Process...............................................................................13

Strengthening Council-Agency Communication...........................................................................15

Habitat Networks and Collaborations............................................................................................16

Emerging Issues.............................................................................................................................18

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................20

EFH Authorities in a Changing Environment............................................................................................21

Advances in Habitat Science to Support EFH...............................................................................21

Ecosystem Modeling for Habitat Management .............................................................................23

Nowcasting Seascape Dynamics to Better Estimate Past and Future Species-Habitat 

Distributions...................................................................................................................................24

Prioritizing Habitat Conservation Across Ontogeny and Species .................................................25

Monitoring, Modeling, and Mapping Demersal Communities in Untrawlable Habitats ..............26

Discussion......................................................................................................................................27

EFH in a Changing Climate Breakout Sessions ............................................................................28

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................29

EFH and EBFM .........................................................................................................................................30

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................31
iv

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................31

Appendix A – Agenda ...............................................................................................................................34

Appendix B – Planning Groups.................................................................................................................40

Appendix C – Participants.........................................................................................................................41

Appendix D – Post-Summit Activities ......................................................................................................44
v

Executive Summary

In recognition of the twentieth anniversary of the inclusion of essential fish habitat (EFH) 

provisions into the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), regional fishery management councils 

(councils), and their partners convened the National EFH Summit in May 2016. Held in 

Annapolis, Maryland, this three-day participatory working meeting was facilitated by the 

Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum, and organized by council and NOAA Fisheries 

staff and leadership across regions. The goal of this Summit was to bring together council and 

NOAA Fisheries habitat experts to assess and identify opportunities, challenges, and successful 

approaches for effective implementation of the MSA-EFH authorities across regions, and in a 

changing environment.

Through targeted presentations, roundtable sessions, and breakout group discussions, Summit 

participants shared ideas and experiences across roles, regions, and responsibilities. Council staff 

and NOAA Fisheries scientists and managers reported on current progress in understanding EFH 

and in applying its authorities. Participants also discussed regional approaches toward 

identifying, describing, and reviewing EFH and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), 

specific regional data needs, and the tools and methods used by regions to continue successfully 

designating, refining, and conserving EFH, even when challenged by the limitations of the

available data. Continued conversations focused on how best to minimize adverse fishing effects

on EFH in effective yet practicable ways, how best to measure progress, and regional differences 

in these perspectives, including in their application and evaluation. 

Additional presentations and discussions included an overview of EFH consultations and their 

successes, how best to improve habitat-focused communication between and within councils and 

federal agencies, and examples of successful collaborations between NOAA and federal partners 

in habitat-based scientific and conservation efforts. Roundtable conversations also included how 

regions are addressing emerging threats to EFH from non-fishing activities such as natural gas 

and wind energy development, aquaculture, climate change, offshore mining, sediment 

diversions, and invasive species, activities that produce underwater sound, including the

cumulative effects of these stressors. Additionally, advances in habitat science to support the 

effective implementation and use of EFH designations, applications to address EFH in a 

changing environment, and the need for improved coordination among scientists and managers 

were also discussed. Finally, as fisheries managers strive for a more holistic, system-wide 

perspective, summit attendees discussed how EFH can serve as an important component of 

ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) and how best to integrate it into the fishery 

management process in each region.

The following themes emerged over the course of the three-day Summit:

● Defining “essential” as it applies to EFH will remain a key challenge.

● Establishing clearly defined goals and objectives in the use of EFH authorities is 

necessary for practicable and effective conservation.

● Habitat conservation is paramount in maintaining ecosystem and fishery productivity, 

and is a useful tool for implementing EBFM.
vi

● Providing a “voice” for fisheries, and building relationships and collaborations among 

NOAA Fisheries, the councils, federal action agencies, and the fishing community is vital

for successful habitat conservation.

● NOAA Fisheries and partners, including the fishing community, must continue to address 

habitat science gaps.

● Implementing shared mandates requires flexibility and acknowledgement of the differing 

regional contexts, innovations, and approaches for identifying, reviewing, revising, and 

conserving EFH.

● All EFH practitioners, including scientists, managers, and consultation staff, should strive 

to build a community of practice, maintain communications, and develop effective 

working relationships within and across regions.

At the cross-regional level, participants confirmed the value of communication among members 

of the habitat and EFH community, especially among EFH scientists, council staff, and managers 

regarding their EFH approaches, interests, and advances. Specific topics of interest for ongoing 

information exchange include climate change, ecosystem-based management, cumulative 

impacts, and funding high priority science needs. Continued opportunities to foster information 

exchanges among councils, regional offices, and science centers within and across regions are 

imperative to ensuring successful fisheries management and habitat conservation.
vii

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the significant support provided by the Fisheries Leadership and 

Sustainability Forum, Kim Gordon, and Caitlin Hamer, including meeting planning and 

facilitation, discussion documentation, and summary reporting that is extensively reflected 

within this Tech Memo. We are also incredibly thankful to the EFH Summit Steering 

Committee, Advisory Group, and the Council Coordination Committee’s Habitat Workgroup for 

their contributions in ensuring targeted and productive discussions. Funding for the EFH Summit 

was provided by the NOAA Fisheries Offices of Habitat Conservation and Science & 

Technology.

1

Introduction

In 1996, Congress recognized that the continuing loss of habitats is one of the greatest long-term 

threats to our nation’s commercial and recreational fisheries. At that time they added a new tool, 

essential fish habitat (EFH) conservation, to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), giving the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and the regional fishery management councils 

(councils) a stronger voice in decisions that affect the habitats that are vital to our nation’s 

fisheries. 

EFH is defined in MSA as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity”.1 Essential habitats are those necessary to a sustainable fishery 

and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem. Impacts from certain fishing 

practices and coastal and marine development may alter, damage, or destroy habitats essential 

for productive fish stocks. NOAA Fisheries, the regional fishery management councils, and other 

federal agencies work together to minimize these threats on fish habitats.

The MSA §305(b) requires the eight councils and the NOAA Fisheries Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species Division to identify and describe EFH for federally managed species under 

their jurisdictions. Based on the best available scientific information, the councils and NOAA 

Fisheries describe EFH for each life stage, provide maps of EFH, designate subsets of EFH as 

habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), and must minimize adverse effects of fishing on 

EFH to the extent practicable. All of this information is provided within the federal fishery 

management plans. Additionally, federal agencies are required to contact NOAA Fisheries and 

consult on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely 

affect EFH. Through this consultation process, NOAA Fisheries provides advice and 

recommendations to avoid, reduce, or compensate for adverse effects to EFH.

Throughout 2016, NOAA Fisheries, the councils, and their partners celebrated twenty years of 

EFH conservation. To recognize this milestone, NOAA Fisheries and council leadership, through 

the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), agreed to support a National EFH Summit.

EFH Summit Objectives and Terms of Reference

The National EFH Summit2was held May 17-19, 2016, in Annapolis, Maryland. The EFH 

Summit was a collaborative meeting developed with input from the Council Coordination 

Committee (CCC), the CCC Habitat Workgroup, and planning bodies including council and 

agency staff from around the country. The Fisheries Leadership & Sustainability Forum 

(Fisheries Forum) coordinated the planning process and facilitated meeting sessions. The goal of 

the EFH Summit was to convene council and NOAA Fisheries habitat experts to assess and 

 1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. 2006. U.S. Public

Law 109-479, 120 Statute 3575, §3 (10). 2 Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum: National Essential Fish Habitat Summit 

http://www.fisheriesforum.org/our-work/special-projects/efh-summit/
2

identify opportunities, challenges, and successful approaches for the effective implementation of 

the MSA-EFH authorities. The EFH Summit was a participatory working meeting, with an 

emphasis on conversation across roles and regions. Short presentations and regional examples 

were included as a starting point for facilitated breakouts and large group discussions. Detailed 

information on the meeting agenda, Summit organizers and participants, and a summary of postSummit activities may be found in Appendices A-D of this report.

The EFH Summit Terms of Reference (TOR) include a set of broad topics that support the EFH 

Summit objective. Each TOR was addressed through targeted discussions and examples that 

maximize the opportunity to share ideas and experiences across roles, regions, and 

responsibilities.

1. Share perspectives on successful approaches to EFH designation and review.

2. Consider approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of actions taken to minimize 

adverse effects of fishing on EFH.

3. Identify opportunities to ensure effective communication between NOAA Fisheries and 

councils on the implementation and use of EFH authorities, including the EFH 

consultation process.

4. Identify opportunities to integrate habitat information into the fishery management 

process and ecosystem-based fisheries management.

5. Consider how advances in habitat science can support the effective implementation and 

use of EFH authorities, and identify opportunities and challenges to aligning habitat 

science with management needs.

EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Identification and 

Review

The MSA requires councils and NOAA Fisheries to designate EFH for species managed under 

federal fishery management plans (FMPs). Each federal FMP must describe and identify EFH, 

minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other 

actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. FMPs also designate subsets of 

EFH as HAPCs to highlight priority areas or habitat types for conservation and management. 

HAPCs are designated based on ecological importance, susceptibility to human-induced 

environmental degradation, susceptibility to stress from development, and/or rarity of the habitat 

type. NOAA Fisheries and the councils have described EFH for multiple life stages of nearly 

1,000 federally managed species and designated more than 100 HAPCs.

Councils and NOAA Fisheries must also periodically review EFH information within FMPs. The 

objective of the review, commonly referred to as the “EFH five-year review,” is to evaluate and 

synthesize new information on habitat and determine whether changes to the FMPs are 

warranted. The EFH five-year review will evaluate published scientific literature, unpublished 

scientific reports, information solicited from interested parties, and previously unavailable or 

inaccessible data. If the Council or NOAA Fisheries finds that an update is warranted, FMP 

amendments will be initiated, along with the appropriate analytical documents. 
3

Regional/Council Similarities and Differences

The EFH Summit took a two-part approach to share similarities and differences between regional 

uses of EFH authorities. Prior to the EFH Summit, the Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability 

Forum worked with every council and region, and the NOAA Fisheries Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species Management Division, to develop short (2-4 page) profiles describing:

• Each region’s approach to identifying, describing, and reviewing EFH and designating 

HAPCs.

• A chronology of council actions on EFH, tools and mapping approaches.

• EFH consultation involvement, among other relevant and insightful information.

These documents were provided to participants prior to the Summit and offered additional detail 

and a common frame of reference for discussions. All Regional EFH Profiles can be found at 

http://www.fisheriesforum.org/our-work/special-projects/efh-summit. A related report, Regional 

Use of the HAPC Designation, and a supplemental document, Current and Proposed Habitat 

Areas of Particular Concern, are available under the Essential Fish Habitat subheading at 

http://www.mafmc.org/habitat/.

Council and agency staff participated in a regional roundtable session and discussion to highlight 

similarities, differences, and regional adaptations to the use of EFH authorities. Topics included 

the timing and scope of EFH reviews, information inputs, roles and responsibilities, the use of 

tools and modeling approaches, and successes and challenges. Speakers shared the ideas and 

questions raised through their EFH processes including defining and refining the meaning of 

“essential,” organizing EFH information (e.g., identifying overlays and “hotspots” of habitat 

use), capturing variability and change, engaging councils, the public, and other partners 

effectively, and identifying and using goals and objectives to guide conservation work. Out of 

these presentations and discussions, councils particularly highlighted their challenges and unique 

approaches to incorporating data into their EFH five-year reviews. 

EFH Designations and Data Challenges

All councils and regions struggle with limitations on the availability of detailed fish habitat data, 

which in turn can limit the specificity of EFH designations. As data evolves and becomes 

available, the regions and councils will begin to see a more refined definition of EFH. In the 

meantime, councils and NOAA Fisheries regions have taken unique approaches to incorporating 

data into their five-year reviews. However, challenges to incorporating those data and confusion 

or misunderstanding on why we designate EFH and HAPCs remain. Seven key topics were 

addressed during EFH Summit discussion: 

EFH Designations

EFH designations inform many conservation processes, including informing EFH consultations, 

habitat research priorities, fishery management actions, and applying ecosystem-based fisheries 

management (EBFM)3

, among others. NOAA Fisheries biologists use EFH identifications and 

 3 NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Policy and Roadmap. 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/ebfm/creating-an-ebfm-management-policy
4

descriptions to provide recommendations to federal action agencies to minimize the adverse 

effects of federally proposed, authorized, funded, or undertaken activities. In the process of 

designating EFH, councils should use the best available information to thoroughly describe and 

identify the components of EFH to facilitate habitat protection. Councils and NOAA Fisheries 

(for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS)) should consider the intention of these EFH 

designations when crafting designations to meet those needs. For example, in order to facilitate 

protection of fishery species that use inshore and nearshore habitats during key early life stages, 

councils should emphasize detailed inshore/nearshore habitat needs and data (e.g., examine 

relative abundance by using state surveys).

HAPC Designations

Councils and NOAA Fisheries recognized the need to highlight priority habitat areas in FMPs as 

early as the 1980s. For example, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) 

highlighted priority coral habitat areas in its 1982 FMP for Coral and Coral Reefs. This set the 

stage for HAPC designation. HAPCs are easily mistaken for other management measures, such 

as marine protected areas, because HAPC designations are often accompanied with 

implementing regulations that restrict activities. However, HAPCs have no implied management 

measures - councils must take further action to implement fishery management measures within 

HAPCs. Additionally, HAPCs do not automatically confer any restrictions on non-fishing 

activities, such as constraints on energy development or access for boating or diving. Regardless 

of the presence of restrictions, HAPCs are still important tools for EFH consulting biologists, 

who assess the effects of proposed activities on aquatic habitats. If a project is located within or 

near a HAPC, EFH consulting biologists may recommend additional or more rigorous EFH 

conservation measures. Looking forward, councils want to use the HAPC authority more 

effectively to draw attention to the most productive habitats and fishing grounds. They are 

searching for new tools and information in order to better define HAPCs.

Forward Looking Data

Some councils and NOAA Fisheries use long time series of data to determine EFH designations 

for their managed species. Relying on historical data can serve to identify habitats that have been 

used by species in the past and present, but does not account for recent changes in species 

distributions and habitat use. Given current climate trends, the output from forward looking 

projections models may help to predict fluctuations in species distributions, and clarify the 

effects of climate change on species’ habitat use dynamics. Data could also be used to anticipate 

which habitats may become more vulnerable, or are at risk due to climate change. NOAA 

Fisheries and councils may also look to incorporate other types of information, such as 

professional judgment, if a dataset does not represent the current location of species or if 

modeling is not feasible. NOAA Fisheries and council members want EFH designations that 

effectively support the design and evaluation of fishery management measures that often remain 

in place for many years. EFH designations that are based on or include information on climate 

vulnerability could ultimately inform the Regional Offices as they consider the long-term effects 

of federal activities on EFH.

The Need for Dynamic Data

EFH, among other distribution data on wildlife and marine species, is usually illustrated through 

static maps. However, marine species do not live in a static environment, and static mapping 
5

does not accurately represent the dynamic nature of the marine environment.4 Many marine 

species are known to migrate based upon temporal and seasonal variability, availability of prey, 

habitat type, and life stage, and strong seasonal components may drive the migratory patterns and 

habitat use by fishes. Additionally, many federally managed species are pelagic, highly mobile, 

and align along dynamic current boundaries, instead of bottom features or stationary habitats. 

Because static maps do not capture these patterns, it is important to account for the dynamic, 

seasonal and climate-driven fishery habitat use and changing distribution within EFH text 

descriptions. Councils and NOAA Fisheries are searching for ways to incorporate such dynamic 

data into EFH text descriptions, maps, and management decisions.

Data Scale

When we attempt to quantify species-habitat interactions, data are usually collected and 

compiled over large spatial and temporal scales.5 Specific areas that species select as suitable 

habitats are difficult to identify and habitat use is difficult to quantify. For example, Golden 

Tilefish prefer clay habitat and dig burrows in the sediment to form “pueblos.” They also prefer 

stable bottom temperatures and are found along a narrow band on the shelf. To display their 

preferred thermal range the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) used the 

depth range where these bottom temperatures prevail during the year (100-300 m) to determine 

their habitat distribution. However, this approach does not account for microscale variations in 

habitat conditions (e.g., sediment type). Some councils aggregate survey data and map EFH 

using ten-minute squares of latitude and longitude, but we know fish use habitats at finer spatial 

scales. Determining species-habitat interactions at finer spatial scales would improve our 

understanding of the interaction between species and their habitats, and provide consulting 

biologists with more specific needed information for the protection of those habitats.

Integrating Multiple Data Sources

Fisheries data come from multiple sources, and vary in terms of the type of information provided

and spatial scale. Sources include satellite and acoustic tags, surveys, fishery dependent observer 

data, or small-scale research projects. Staff must combine multiple types of information collected 

under varying sampling regimens that they do not have control over, making it difficult to 

integrate multiple data sources into a cohesive set. For example, the New England and MidAtlantic fishery management councils have used fifty years of federal trawl survey data in their 

Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2, but combining distinct surveys and additional inshore trawl 

survey data into a single EFH product proved challenging. This effort was particularly 

complicated by the diverse types of data that were collected by a number of different states over 

different timespans, seasons, and with nets of different types and mesh sizes. For analysis, all 

datasets had to be combined together and mapped at a ten-minute designation based on the same 

criteria, but thresholds for identifying “EFH” versus “not EFH” varied for the different data sets. 

We need better methods for integrating diverse datasets, especially for those that are derived 

from different data sources and are processed differently.

 4 Žydelis R. et al. Dynamic habitat models: using telemetry data to project fisheries bycatch. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 

3191–3200 (2011). 5 Ibid.
6

Lack of Data

Most managed species are data poor, having only presence/absence or distribution information

(EFH designation as Level 0 or 1).

6 EFH can be designated for multiple life stages if data are 

unavailable for each individual life stage. For instance, the NOAA Fisheries Atlantic HMS

Management Division uses this approach for species such as the Whale Shark and Porbeagle 

Shark. Sometimes EFH determinations cannot be made because basic life history information or 

data are lacking altogether. HMS species are often ubiquitously distributed across multiple types 

of habitats, and so it is difficult to determine their proclivity for one habitat over another. Lastly, 

additional information is needed for better understanding of the impacts of fishing and nonfishing activities on habitats.

Technology and Partnerships for Better EFH Designations

Councils and NOAA Fisheries also presented on actions that they are taking to advance and 

refine EFH by using tools and models (data portals, climate impact assessments, ecosystem 

modeling, etc.), and highlighted collaborations with partners that can allow for the development 

and use of these types of tools in improving EFH designations and impact analyses.

EFH Data Catalogue and Atlas

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) has been collaborating with the Fish 

and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) since 2003 to create, compile, and host spatial and nonspatial data relevant to habitats, management zones, and fisheries in the South Atlantic 

ecosystem through the SAFMC Digital Dashboard

(http://ocean.floridamarine.org/safmc_dashboard/). This Dashboard includes a Data Catalogue 

where one can view and download select spatial layers, regional partner and project links, and 

ArcGIS Online products. This Dashboard was created with the goal of linking everything from 

upland/mountains to the EEZ on a landscape-scale. Additionally, SAFMC worked closely with 

FWRI to create the SAFMC Habitat and Ecosystem Atlas (http://safmc.net/habitat-andecosystems/safmc-habitat-and-ecosystem-atlas/). The new Atlas will allow users to view a 

variety of map services supporting fishery management issues in a single portal, including EFH 

and HAPC designations and habitat information.

Identifying EFH Hotspots

The GMFMC completed its most recent EFH five-year review in December 2016. As part of the 

review, the GMFMC considered whether it is more important to reduce or refine spatial 

depictions of EFH. In the Gulf of Mexico region, most of the EEZ is described as EFH for at 

least one species. For example, reef fish EFH is currently all waters out to the 100-fathom mark 

(200 m). The GMFMC refined EFH to the species and life stage level, overlaid EFH map layers 

for certain life stages within FMPs, identified EFH hotspots for multiple species, and created 

heat maps of those hotspots. These heat maps attribute specific depths and habitat types to the 

life stages of each species. This approach better depicts and leverages available science for better 

management decisions regarding these species and their habitats.

The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) has identified hot spots for managed 

species, such as fish spawning aggregation sites, by using information from local fishers. 

 6 50 C.F.R. § 600.815 (a)(1)(iii)(1-4)
7

Consultants from the University of Puerto Rico and University of the Virgin Islands collected 

data on fish species size and population density per 1000 square meters. Currently, designations 

exist for 151 species of fish and shellfish, and over 80 species of coral, resulting in over 21 EFH

classifications. In recent projects, at least two more habitat designations from mesophotic reefs 

have been completed. At this stage, the CFMC is trying to assess which EFH areas are most 

essential and where they should focus future scientific and conservation efforts.

Species Profiles

The GMFMC is currently creating species profiles, which contain a snapshot of EFH information 

for each species. These profiles summarize the scientific literature, with a focus on studies that 

inform current knowledge of habitat utilization by the species. The profiles also include and a 

description of the managed species habitat use by life stage, and the history of the fishery. The 

GMFMC is planning to add searchable bibliographies of literature used, with links to open 

source resources and abstracts of other resources. Long documents are generally not user 

friendly, so the overall goal of these efforts is to make information more accessible and easily

available online. All of this new information will be hosted in the Gulf Council Data Portal.

The SAFMC is actively building an online system that gives species life history information, 

annual catch limits, and habitat information. The system is intended to be a resource for people 

working on EFH.

Collaboration on Bathymetry Data

Most EFH data currently collected in the Caribbean are from waters less than 30 meters deep, as

deeper data collection requires technical diving skills. Therefore, most habitats have been 

described only in state waters and not in the EEZ. In order to gather additional EFH data from 

deeper and/or federal waters, the CFMC is collaborating with state agencies, local anglers, 

NOAA, and other partners to collect high-resolution bathymetry data. High-resolution 

bathymetry and habitat maps are then used to help plan dives to assess specific habitats and the 

use of those habitats by different species. 

Regional Approaches to EFH 5-year Reviews

Lastly, councils and NOAA Fisheries presented on regional approaches and processes for 

identifying and reviewing EFH. 

Fishery Ecosystem/Island Based Plans

As of the Summit, The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) was in the 

process of amending the Hawaiian Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan bottomfish and 

seamount groundfish EFH designations. This is a multispecies FEP with individual EFH 

designations for each species by depth range, and water column descriptors. EFH is based on 

analysis of these data types or model results. For bottomfish, 95% of distribution data (Level 1) 

observations only account for the post-settlement and adult life stages, while egg and larval life 

stages have little to no data. Although models predict that eggs will hatch within 50 miles of 

islands, larval dispersal likely extends beyond the EEZ boundaries. Therefore, the EFH 

designation for the egg life stage is limited to within 50 miles from shore. The council uses 

FEPs, which meet the requirements for FMPs, and requires a plan team to complete the EFH 

review through an annual report process. The process was operationalized in 2016 due to 
8

restructuring, and new staff in the council, the NOAA Fisheries Regional Office, and NOAA 

Fisheries Science Center are working on updating precious corals species descriptions.

The CFMC is also transitioning to location-based FMPs, which are structured by island or island 

group rather than by species, to allow managers to consider the differences in culture, markets, 

gears, and seafood preferences among the U.S. Caribbean islands. In March 2013, the CFMC 

developed an Environmental Assessment, which analyzed the shift in fisheries management in 

the U.S. Caribbean from species-based to island-based. The CFMC is currently developing 

island-based FMPs for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas/St. John and, when finalized, 

these will replace the current species-based FMPs. The switch will help the CFMC identify 

essential habitat for each managed species for each island.

Omnibus EFH Review Approach

The NEFMC recently finished Omnibus EFH Amendment 2 (OHA2). Instead of reviewing 

individual FMPs, the NEFMC reviewed and updated EFH for all NEFMC-managed species in a 

single omnibus amendment. The council initiated OHA2 in 2004 and approved EFH 

designations for 18 of the species managed by the council and several new HAPCs in 2007. Final 

action on OHA2 was taken in 2015 when the council approved some new area closures to 

minimize the adverse impacts of mobile, bottom-tending fishing gear on EFH and retained other 

area closures that were established in 2004 in separate management actions. OHA2 is currently

awaiting NOAA Fisheries approval, but once implemented will update EFH designations for all 

species managed by the council (now 28). The MAFMC is taking a similar omnibus approach in 

its upcoming EFH five-year review for the 13 species currently managed by the MAFMC.

Designations and fishery impact evaluations were updated for some of the species managed by 

this council during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but not for all. 

Two Approaches from One Council

The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) Groundfish and Salmon FMPs contain EFH 

descriptions for multiple species, which are updated during five-year reviews. The most recent

EFH five-year review of the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP, completed in 2011, led to EFH 

descriptions in freshwater habitat, marine and estuarine waters, and habitats out to the EEZ north 

of Point Conception, as stated in Amendment 18 to the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP (Final Rule, 

2014). Although the review identified some adverse effects on salmon EFH from fishing, those 

effects are in state waters. Therefore, it did not result in any management measures to address 

those effects.

Amendment 19 to the Pacific Groundfish FMP (2006) designated EFH for 90+ species, and 

when taken across all species and life stages, encompasses all estuarine and marine waters and 

substrate in depths less than or equal to 3,500 m shoreward to mean higher high water or the 

upriver extent of saltwater intrusion (where salinity <0.5 parts per thousand). Amendment 19 

also closed 72% of all groundfish EFH to certain types of bottom contact fishing gear to 

minimize the effects of fishing on EFH. The PFMC’s 2010 review of groundfish EFH 

(completed in 2013) determined that changes to the designation of EFH were not warranted, but 

did find that changes to the EFH Conservation Areas that prohibit bottom trawling were

warranted. However, the PFMC is currently considering fishery management actions in 

Amendment 28 to the FMP that revise the EFH Conservation Areas where bottom trawling is 
9

prohibited, which eliminate the prohibition of bottom trawling between 100fm and 150 fm. This 

prohibition was put in place to control bycatch of overfished species, but also provides EFH 

protections and takes a precautionary approach in closing waters 3,500 fathoms and deeper from 

bottom contact gear under the MSA discretionary authorities.

In its salmon and groundfish EFH reviews, the PFMC used two different administrative 

processes. The salmon FMP was examined by a very small committee that reviewed the best 

available science, while the groundfish review committee also included academics, coastal treaty 

tribes, non-governmental organizations, and fishing industry representatives. The salmon review 

committee made specific recommendations on changes to EFH, while the groundfish review 

committee used a more complex process that included a request for proposals from the public 

that resulted in eight proposals. The groundfish review committee evaluated the public proposals

and made high-level recommendations on changes to the EFH provisions. 

In summary, changes to salmon EFH were based primarily on the review committee's 

recommendations, and no management measures were made. Changes to EFH for groundfish

were based on the proposals, including areas closed to bottom trawling gear. Following these two 

processes, the PFMC recognized the need to establish clear goals or objectives prior to an EFH 

review, and carefully consider the makeup of such review bodies. This is especially important 

when considering management actions to minimize adverse effects.

Additional Issues

Continued group discussion regarding EFH and HAPC identification and review focused on

additional challenges, including:

• Examining the opportunity cost from “underdefined” EFH, and striking the balance 

between tight refinement and simple regulation.

• Determining when “enough” conservation has been achieved and evaluating the outcome 

of measures intended to minimize fishery impacts.

• Identifying inland boundaries of EFH designations.

• Considering the impacts of climate change on EFH.

• Determining if EFH designations could, and do play a role in stock status.

• Identifying the role of the NOAA Fisheries science centers and other conservation 

agencies in defining and protecting EFH.

• Assessing the need for sufficient funding to identify priorities to fulfill the mandates for 

EFH.

Conclusions

● Councils and NOAA Fisheries should craft EFH descriptions in a way to maximize their 

utility to fishery and habitat conservation managers.

● HAPC designations can help EFH practitioners pinpoint the most important habitats and 

fishing grounds to protect during consultations.

● Forward looking and finer-scale data are needed on species and their interactions with 

habitats to improve EFH designations.

● More information on the dynamic nature of pelagic habitats (e.g., seasonal changes that 

affect fine-scale species distributions) would make EFH text descriptions more useful for 

short-term impact assessments.
10

● Habitat assessment, mapping, data dissemination tools and technology, and 

collaborations with key partners can enhance the EFH designation process.

● Councils and NOAA Fisheries use a variety of methods and approaches to review and 

update EFH information, and this regional flexibility is important to maintain.

Practicability and Effectiveness

MSA and the EFH regulatory guidelines require that fishery management plans prevent, 

mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing, to the extent practicable, if there is 

evidence that a fishing activity adversely affects EFH in a manner that is more than minimal and 

not temporary in nature. The regulatory guidelines also state that FMPs should identify a range 

of potential new actions that could be taken to address adverse effects on EFH, include an 

analysis of the practicability of potential new actions, and adopt any new measures that are 

necessary and practicable. In determining whether it is practicable to minimize an adverse effect 

from fishing, councils should consider the nature and extent of the adverse effect on EFH and the 

long and short-term costs and benefits of potential management measures to EFH, associated 

fisheries, and the nation. However, a formal cost/benefit analysis is not required.

These requirements have led the councils and NOAA Fisheries to question whether fishery 

management measures have been effective in minimizing the adverse effects of fishing on EFH,

and what further actions are practicable. Practicability and effectiveness are related concepts, but 

have been difficult to define.

The EFH Summit took an in-depth look at these challenging EFH requirements, focusing on the 

mandate to minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects from fishing. The group also 

considered approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of actions to conserve EFH and minimize 

adverse effects from fishing. Speakers from the New England, Alaska, and Pacific regions shared 

their experience with these topics in the context of their regions’ fisheries, ecosystems, and 

information sources, focusing on the handoff from habitat science to fishery management 

decisions. Participants explored practicability and effectiveness in depth through facilitated 

breakout discussions that considered the information, tools, goals, objectives, metrics, and other 

inputs that could contribute to evaluating effectiveness.

Key Themes of Discussion

Determining what is “practicable” and what is “effective” is not easy. Both are “squishy” 

concepts that are difficult to pin down. Participants agreed that additional clarity or structure in 

addressing these terms could be valuable to guide further discussions of each concept. However, 

these concepts, like EFH itself, are context-dependent and regionally interpreted. The challenges 

of addressing both simultaneously adds another layer of complexity to fundamental EFH 

challenges (defining essential, refining EFH, etc.).

Effectiveness and practicability both circle back to fundamental EFH questions

In discussing these concepts, EFH Summit participants frequently highlighted that determining 

both practicability and effectiveness depends on setting clear goals and objectives. By having a 

clearly defined understanding of what a council or NOAA Fisheries is trying to achieve, 

scientists, managers, and the public can better understand whether habitat conservation actions 
11

have been effective and whether newly proposed management measures are practicable. 

Additionally, some participants commented that determining effectiveness and practicability 

requires a strong understanding of “essential.” For example, is a council or NOAA Fisheries 

identifying and conserving habitat that is most in need of protection? What are the qualities that 

make it essential – e.g., abundance, density, species richness? Others thought that “essential” 

could mean the full range of fishery habitat needs, not simply what is most sensitive, compelling, 

well-known, vulnerable, etc. Finally, the "right amount” of habitat conservation (i.e., what is 

both effective and practicable) ideally depends on linking habitat conservation measures with 

fishery resource productivity, which remains challenging. In practice, however, there is seldom 

enough quantitative information available to link the two, and the more feasible approach of 

“minimizing adverse impacts on EFH to the extent practicable” as defined in the EFH Final Rule 

is used instead.

Each region approaches practicability and effectiveness from a different perspective

Each regional council approaches the practicability and effectiveness concepts differently 

depending on a variety of factors, including the type of habitat protection required (e.g., gear 

restrictions, area closures, or protections from non-fishing impacts), fishing gear types restricted

(particularly bottom trawls, dredges. and other mobile bottom-tending gears), and the level of 

focus on minimizing adverse impacts. These concepts have been a prominent discussion topic 

within the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), PFMC, and NEFMC as they 

reviewed their EFH information in fishery management plans and considered whether new 

fishing impact minimization measures are necessary to conserve EFH. The concepts have been 

less prominent in other regions - e.g., the Western Pacific and the Southeastern U.S. - where 

bottom-contact gear is less prevalent. However, the effectiveness of conservation 

recommendations to minimize non-fishing related impacts to EFH is a focus across all regions.

The relationship between practicability and effectiveness is complicated

Effectiveness is seemingly a more common discussion point across all regions as they struggle to 

determine whether EFH identifications and conservation measures are working to rebuild and 

maintain sustainable fisheries and healthy fishery ecosystems. Practicability, on the other hand, 

is more often discussed in the context of deciding how to minimize adverse effects of fishing on 

habitats while at the same time avoiding unacceptable economic impacts. These concepts are 

sometimes viewed as opposing each other. For example, a larger gear closure may be more likely 

to be effective to conserve habitat, but a smaller closure area may be more practicable. 

Effectiveness is difficult to demonstrate and measure

EFH Summit participants found that demonstrating effectiveness is necessary for achieving buyin and in showing that habitat conservation actions have translated into measurable benefits for 

fisheries, including increased productivity and fishing access. However, there are currently no 

commonly used quantitative mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of any singular habitat 

conservation action or to quantify benefits of a broader suite of habitat conservation strategies. 

We lack the capacity for long term monitoring of conservation outcomes, and are challenged by 

the lack of quantitative information to link habitat conservation with productivity or stock status. 

Additionally, we are still determining the connections between inshore habitats and offshore 

fisheries. Similarly, we do not have the capacity or infrastructure to evaluate the effectiveness of 

EFH conservation recommendations provided through the consultation process. Multiple factors 
12

influence the effectiveness of such conservation approaches, including action agency 

implementation and follow through. Often, and especially in the case of EFH consultations, 

effectiveness is viewed in terms of adverse outcomes avoided. 

The discussion around the topic of effectiveness did not lead to a common agreement on an 

approach for its determination or on whether its measurement is even necessary.

Practicability is context dependent, and largely implicit

Consideration of practicability is implicit but constant - councils are assessing practicability with 

every decision, whether formally or informally – evaluating values, costs, benefits, and risk 

tolerance. The EFH regulatory guidelines provide a definition of practicability, and the 

considerations and inputs that contribute to determining practicability are similar across regions: 

e.g., information availability, cost or displacement of industry, type of restrictions, technology, 

etc. However, EFH Summit participants found that the councils and NOAA Fisheries have 

different perspectives on what level of impact from these considerations is deemed practicable. 

There were varying opinions on the need to further clarify a national definition of practicability 

and provide guidance for determining it. Many agreed that a more robust definition and guidance 

could make it easier for council or NOAA Fisheries use during the EFH review and amendment 

process. However, it may be hard to find common solutions that would satisfy the needs of each 

council or region. What is practicable for one council or NOAA Fisheries might not be 

practicable for another, and most agreed that regional flexibility is important to maintain. 

Ultimately, councils and NOAA Fisheries are responsible for providing their rationale and 

regional context in determining practicability. Absent national guidance, individual councils and 

NOAA Fisheries should work with NOAA regional offices on a case-by-case basis to define 

practicability more clearly beyond what is articulated in the EFH Final Rule, and clarify how 

they are achieving it.

Practicability is a “negative standard”

A common theme of discussion was that it is much easier to demonstrate that a proposed fishery 

management or habitat conservation measure is not practicable than to show that it is practicable. 

Given the difficulty in quantifying the benefits of habitat conservation activities, discussions on 

practicability tend to focus more on economic feasibility. A more comprehensive and effective

way to measure conservation benefits is needed for more balanced practicability evaluations.

Conclusions

● Determining both practicability and effectiveness depends on setting clear goals and 

objectives. 

● In any given situation, determining what is effective and practicable requires a strong 

understanding of what “essential” means. 

● Ideally, the "right amount” of habitat conservation is the amount that enhances resource 

productivity, but in practice this is very challenging to determine.

● It is important to maintain regional flexibility when making practicability determinations.
13

EFH Consultations, Effective Council-Agency Communication, and 

Opportunities for Collaboration

Representatives from the NOAA Fisheries Office of Sustainable Fisheries, several councils, and 

NOAA Fisheries regional offices offered their perspectives on EFH consultations and strategies 

to enhance council-agency communication. Presentations and conversations among panelists 

along these themes helped to frame discussions for better understanding of EFH consultations, 

areas for their development, and methods for bridging communication gaps among federal 

agencies and councils.

Introduction to the EFH Consultation Process

An introductory overview was presented on EFH consultations. These MSA mandated 

consultations between NOAA Fisheries and other federal agencies are required for any federal 

actions or proposed federal actions undertaken in a given location that may adversely affect 

EFH. While state agencies are not required to consult on similar state actions, NOAA Fisheries 

can provide recommendations on how best to carry out state projects in ways that are the most 

ecologically favorable. In addition, the Councils are able to comment on such actions, make 

recommendations to state and federal agencies, and comment on activities that are likely to affect 

habitat substantially, including the EFH of diadromous fishes. These consultations are also 

required when actions occurring outside of EFH (e.g. upland activities) may adversely affect 

EFH and when EFH is designated in areas that were historically, but not currently, occupied 

(e.g., above certain impassible dams. Each year, NOAA Fisheries biologists and staff receive 

approximately 6,000 requests for consultations nationally.

Adverse effects are defined as any impacts that reduce the quality or quantity of EFH, and they 

account for those impacts that are direct, indirect, individually cumulative, or synergistic. These 

effects are examined for their magnitude, range of impacts, and whether they require 

conservation recommendations or appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or offset them. EFH 

consultations are most commonly abbreviated consultations, and are completed in a short 

timeframe, generally 30 days. Expanded consultations for more complex, large scale or highimpact activities also occur, and require coordination that is more robust over a longer 

timeframe, and may include extensive literature and data reviews. Programmatic consultations 

may also be used to streamline the consultation process for an entire program, parts of a 

program, or a number of similar individual actions occurring within a given geographic area, 

e.g., transportation projects or those that require nationwide permits. 

When issuing EFH conservation recommendations as part of the consultation process, NOAA 

Fisheries focuses on how projects would affect habitats and sensitive life stages of living marine 

resources. The MSA, and the implementing regulations on EFH, requires a detailed response to 

EFH Conservation Recommendations from the Federal action agency within 30 days of their 

receipt. The response must include a description of the measures proposed by the agency for 

avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. If the response is 

inconsistent with NOAA Fisheries EFH Conservation Recommendations, the agency must 

explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification 

for any disagreements over the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to 

avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects. If an agreement cannot be met between NOAA 
14

Fisheries and the action agency at the staff level, further review can be requested by the NOAA 

Fisheries Assistant Administrator, although these are rarely needed.

Most EFH consultations occur for projects undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers, though 

NOAA Fisheries also consults on hundreds of activities each year performed by the U.S. 

Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), and other agencies. Activities that are commonly the subject of 

consultation include, dredge and fill operations, shoreline stabilization efforts, beach 

nourishment and dock construction work, and transportation projects. Each consultation has a 

differing level of effort, dependent on the level of early coordination, the degree to which the 

agency is willing to coordinate and accept EFH conservation recommendations, project size, 

potential impact to EFH, and the quality of the EFH assessment. For example, consultation

between NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for deepening New York 

Harbor has been ongoing for 20 years. This consultation represents a collaborative effort to 

protect EFH and other fishery resources while efficiently deepening and maintenance dredging 

over 30 nautical miles of Federal Navigation Channels within New York Harbor for many years 

to come. 

Due to the high number of EFH consultation requests received by NOAA Fisheries each year, 

they are often prioritized to focus on larger, high ecological value projects with greatest potential 

for long-term effects, and on those projects that may be controversial. Consultations may also be 

combined to address cumulative effects, or to consider impacts to aquatic resources of concern to 

NOAA, but fall under other authorities such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or the 

Endangered Species Act.

Following the presentation, discussion was focused on clarifying requirements for states to 

engage in EFH consultation processes, and elaborating on the ongoing New York Harbor 

consultations:

States are not required to consult with NOAA Fisheries, but NOAA can issue recommendations 

on state-level projects if their effects are discovered, or during public comment periods and 

coordination efforts. However, unlike Federal agencies, states are not required to respond to 

these recommendations. 

Although emphasized by many as an example of the strength of the EFH consultation program, 

the ongoing New York Harbor coordination is atypical and has been very dependent on the 

cooperation of the Army Corps of Engineers and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

In general, willing partners are needed to continue consultations, collect data, and invest 

resources toward these efforts, and such circumstances may not generally be the case as they 

were in this example. Relationships must be developed with certain jurisdictions, and the 

benefits of such consultations should be communicated to local partners and other entities such 

as fishery management councils.
15

Strengthening Council-Agency Communication

Representatives from either a NOAA Fisheries Regional Office or council in the southeast, midAtlantic, and Alaska regions presented strategies and commentary on how best to strengthen 

communication between federal agencies and corresponding regional councils. 

A collaborative presentation from the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office (SERO) and 

the SAFMC summarized communication strategies from programmatic to project-specific levels 

between the SERO Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) and SAFMC staff. Representatives 

from both groups are members of the SAFMC Habitat Advisory and Coral Advisory Panels, 

playing a significant role in these seats, which serves a cornerstone of their council-agency 

programmatic level communication. In these capacities, the HCD provides input to develop 

SAFMC habitat policies, update EFH designations, and modify fishing gear restrictions. The 

HCD also communicates SAFMC fishery habitat priorities to other federal agencies, e.g., to 

BOEM on offshore wind energy development activities. Additional synergies include 

collaborative work on the South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SALCC) 

nationwide effort to identify high conservation potential areas for focusing SALCC oceanic 

priorities, which allows state and federal agencies to concentrate restoration actions in these 

locations. Additionally, HCD staff are assisting the SAFMC in writing its Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan, in briefing councils on special and individual EFH projects, and assisting in writing 

comment letters on these projects to other federal agencies.

Representatives from the MAFMC work with support from the NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) HCD in improving council approaches to habitat issues. 

The MAFMC works closely with NOAA Fisheries to strengthen the use of existing EFH 

authorities and tools, to communicate habitat concerns and positions through policy documents, 

to develop more habitat objective-based approaches for the council, and to help in leveraging 

council priorities. During the 1980s, there was strong communication between the MAFMC and 

NOAA Fisheries, but the connection became more marginalized during the 2000s when a shift 

from habitat issues toward allocation and stock rebuilding concerns occurred. Efforts to resume 

this connection for habitat are ongoing, especially in setting up processes to discover regional 

habitat projects of interest to the MAFMC, NOAA, and other agencies, and in drafting fishing 

and non-fishing policies with ecosystem and ocean planning advisors and stakeholders. The 

MAFMC receives periodic updates from GARFO HCD on habitat projects of concern, such as 

the impacts of inshore dam removals, dredging, and restoration efforts, and offshore habitat 

impacts of energy exploration, cables, and mining. Additionally, the MAFMC has participated in 

meetings regarding SAFMC council-agency collaborative process, and is working to incorporate 

some of the SAFMC’s strategies.

Similar to the Habitat Advisory Panel for the southeast region, the NPFMC’s Ecosystem 

Committee has established procedures to provide input on non-fishing impacts to EFH in Alaska, 

and has expressed interest in marine mining and energy projects that could affect fisheries or 

adversely affect EFH. The NPFMC has identified specific non-fishing related priorities based on 

the extent to which an activity would interact with a given fishery. Given the size of Alaska’s 

coastline, there are many projects to be considered that interact with its fisheries and potentially 

affect EFH, including marine mining, oil and gas development, seafloor cables, and naval 
16

exercises. Improved council-agency collaboration is emerging as a stronger priority for 

addressing tradeoffs and multiple impacts to EFH in Alaska’s ecosystems. 

Following presentations, discussions among presenters and audience participants focused on the 

South Atlantic region’s efforts to improve mapping and tracking, and how to make this 

concentration a stronger priority for other regions. The SAFMC staff is deeply interested in 

advanced technology with programs to examine how mapping technologies can enhance council 

activities. 

Additionally, council staff and NOAA Fisheries regional staffs are engaging the NOAA 

Fisheries science centers to form action teams during EFH reviews for input and increased 

capacity to complete reviews. While the science centers are not directly involved in the 

consultation process, more interaction between them and the councils would help to better 

integrate habitat science with council priorities and improve communication. The NOAA 

Fisheries Alaska Regional Office has successfully worked with the Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center (AFSC) on projects related to oil and gas, toxicology, and hydrology, but has lacked

resources to examine other subjects at larger scales such as entire embayments or ports. Setting 

up a formal process to do so would be helpful. SERO has a good relationship with the Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), but it is an ad-hoc arrangement, and providing consistency 

and funding would help strengthen the relationship. SERO also works closely with the National 

Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) and relies on their habitat data, in addition to 

information from other sources. While focused on larger projects, the southeast is also interested 

in moving its focus toward examining the cumulative impacts of smaller projects for which 

fewer resources have existed. 

These concerns were echoed by MAFMC staff participants, who recommended creating policies 

and more opportunities to advocate these interests across groups. 

In northern Alaska, a cumulative impacts vulnerability assessment was funded for Norton Sound 

where Red King Crabs (Paralithodes camtschaticus) are found. The area is also subject to nonpoint source discharge, offshore mining, storm water, and other activities. Effects across space 

and time are being considered both spatially and temporally. Funding limitations have prevented 

a desired expansion of these efforts into the Gulf of Alaska. 

Finally, conversations also touched on how council engagement for developing policies and 

relationships can enhance the EFH consultation process. Anytime the council weighs in on an 

issue it adds weight to the federal government recommendations, which can help to advance and 

focus federal actions on habitat issues.

Habitat Networks and Collaborations

Building partnerships among NOAA Fisheries, the councils, and other federal agencies to 

address mutual habitat concerns is needed for leveraging and coordinating resources. Examples 

of NOAA Fisheries’ interagency work under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and 

collaborations with the U.S. Navy and the Department of the Interior, were presented and 

discussed with workshop participants to illustrate collaborative efforts for advancing habitat data 

collection and management.
17

Since the 1970s, NOAA Fisheries has participated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal and state agencies under the guidelines of 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to protect and increase the supply of wildlife and wildlife 

resources. NOAA Fisheries assists in efforts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental 

consequences from planned projects and events that may alter or affect EFH, and in developing 

mitigation tools in coordination with other agencies. Additionally, these networks have been 

used to leverage funds for habitat and living marine resource surveys to obtain needed EFH data. 

As these frameworks continue, ownership and data sharing details are being developed, while 

templates are also being created to allow for continued interagency funding and information 

gathering opportunities.

NOAA Fisheries SERO HCD and the SAFMC have worked together with the U.S. Navy, 

especially regarding their overlapping interests at the Stetson-Miami Terrace Deepwater Coral 

HAPC in the South Atlantic. Naval training and underwater war games occur near this HAPC, 

and consultations are required as to how these activities may potentially affect deepwater coral 

habitat. To explore potential consequences of these actions, the Navy agreed to survey this 

habitat (435 square miles) and to allow NOAA Fisheries to use the data collected for any 

application and mitigation efforts. 

Ongoing communication and information exchange between NOAA Fisheries and the Navy has 

resulted in the development of joint survey cruises, mapping products, and habitat conservation 

plans, which were used by the SAFMC to expand the HAPC to address fishing gear impacts. 

Information gathered by the Navy has also been used to amend the North Florida Marine 

Protected Area (MPA). However, the above efforts have all been undertaken informally, as the 

only written records between NOAA Fisheries and the Navy are EFH consultation letters. To 

avoid the need for formal EFH Conservation Recommendations, the Navy has been very 

cooperative from the beginning, and will now consult one year in advance of any activities. Any 

drafted letter with potential recommendations is then subject to negotiations that are addressed 

before a final letter is written. As a result, the consultation process on this project has become 

more efficient per each five-year period NEPA document renewal, and the Navy has been more 

proactively willing to increase their habitat mapping efforts. 

Continuing on the subject of building relationships for effective EFH consultations, participants 

discussed the value of the non-binding EFH consultation process. Action agencies have the 

discretion to either accept or not accept the advice given by NOAA Fisheries, and the likelihood 

of acceptance depends on the quality of the relationship and trust built between action agency 

and NOAA Fisheries staff. Additionally, conversations that consider the goals and objectives of 

both action and consulting agencies, and that allow for dialogue about consultation advice 

throughout the entire process before an actual letter with recommendations is sent, are key to 

building good relationships. Efforts to elevate projects of interest can also be influenced by the 

quality of the relationship with an action agency, but are more likely to be related to NOAA 

Fisheries priorities toward the level of impact it is willing to accept when balancing other 

demands.

Joint EFH conservation efforts between the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)’s wind energy development, and survey work 
18

with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Hudson Canyons, were also discussed. In addition to 

examining habitat suitability in these regions, the goals of these projects were mutually agreed 

upon by all agencies, and funds were identified for interagency collaboration. In mapping 

regional wind energy areas, BOEM was interested in habitat information at the scale of the 

project regions of interest, but the NEFSC was able to expand these efforts to the entire 

continental shelf and work together with the University of Massachusetts for visual groundtruthing. Proposed wind energy locations were mapped and divided by topography, and several 

were found to be lower quality fishing areas, which suggested minimal impact to fishery species. 

Additional data from USGS seabed classifications, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys, and benthic 

data were overlain together with oceanographic information in a Geographic Information System 

(GIS). Using BOEM’s habitat suitability models, these efforts determined 85 distinct species 

distributions that could be aggregated with fish assemblage information, and helped address fish 

movement patterns over time throughout the shelf. Many north-south fish migrations were 

documented throughout the region, and this information may be of great utility in the context of 

climate change.

Additionally, before collaborations began with BOEM, the NEFSC and USGS worked together 

on long-term mapping of Hudson Canyon using Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) and 

high-resolution sonar (including data on bathymetry, slope, and backscatter information). These 

data were assembled together by joint NOAA and USGS team members to create a Hudson 

Canyon habitat map with species distribution information. Key to these efforts was coordinated 

use of ships for mapping efforts.

Overall, coordinated relationships with federal action agencies are happening nationwide, 

especially given the wide range of action agencies that work closely with NOAA Fisheries on 

advisory and scientific teams. Because NOAA Fisheries is spread over a large area, it must rely 

on other entities to assist in the work required for a given need, negotiate with the priorities of 

those entities, and move forward together in addressing mutual interests. Common visions and 

mutual reliance on specific expertise along a variety of subjects help facilitate the development 

of these partnerships among agencies and allow them to build over time.

Emerging Issues

The EFH consultations and effective council-agency communication session culminated in a 

roundtable discussion on emerging issues in each region. This roundtable discussion allowed 

each region to describe emerging issues that are happening or have happened in their region and 

how a given region successfully dealt with these issues. The roundtable discussion allowed each 

region to learn how other regions mitigate new threats to EFH. Throughout discussions, it was 

clear that each region has been experiencing different emerging issues pertaining to EFH, but all 

regions recognize that tackling such emerging issues requires collaboration and cooperation 

between regions, between scientists and managers, between NOAA Fisheries and the councils, 

and with Federal agencies during EFH consultations.

Emerging issues in the Pacific Islands Region include offshore wind energy development and 

open cage aquaculture. In the past, the Pacific Islands Region focused most of their EFH 

designation and consultation on the nearshore, and mostly dealt with non-fishing impacts (since 

no bottom trawling occurs in their region). Human activities are increasing offshore in the U.S. 
19

Pacific Islands, especially with the development of wind energy sites and creation of open ocean 

aquaculture. These new offshore projects planned in federal waters present new challenges for 

the Pacific Islands, warranting increased collaboration with the councils on assessing the 

potential impacts to EFH, especially since resources are lacking for EFH consultations. This 

increased collaboration between managers and council members will help tackle the new 

challenges that emerge as offshore wind energy and open cage aquaculture continue to expand in 

the Pacific Islands.

Hurricane Sandy made residents in the Greater Atlantic Region more acutely aware of the 

impacts of climate change and extreme weather on their region, which has shifted focus towards 

coastal resiliency. Many EFH consultations were undertaken for clean-up projects after 

Hurricane Sandy, but they tended to be quick and informal since they focused on life, health, and 

safety. To look at long-term coastal resiliency issues, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also 

examined community vulnerability to future flood events as part of its North Atlantic Coastal 

Comprehensive Study, which helped identify those communities that would benefit most from 

new infrastructure projects. NOAA Fisheries is also a member of the Sandy Regional 

Infrastructure Resilience Coordination group led by Department of Housing and Urban 

Development to improve coordination among Federal and State agencies and to streamline the 

review, permitting and construction of coastal infrastructure projects. With the need for new 

ways to increase community resilience, the federal agencies in the Greater Atlantic Region have 

to think about EFH differently by increasing coordination and communication to find the 

appropriate balance between community and environmental resilience.

The Alaska Region provided many examples of how they minimized impacts to EFH when new 

projects or marine interests in their region emerged. For example, increasing industrialization in 

the marine mining industry in Norton Sound required new research to determine potential 

impacts to the region’s Red King Crab fishery. This research not only determined the impact of 

increased mining to Red King Crab, but also increased understanding of the Red King Crab stock 

characteristics, which is beneficial to the stock assessment of this species. Other projects, like the 

laying of a fiber optic cable on the seafloor and the moratorium on oil and gas in Bristol Bay, 

were successful thanks to coordination and support from the NPFMC. Lastly, coordinated 

discussions took place between the NPFMC, and the AFSC National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory to avoid any adverse effects to EFH and HAPCs from the intentional sinking of 

planes and vessels. These examples all show that coordination and collaboration between 

agencies can reduce impacts to EFH and HAPCs.

In the West Coast Region, one main emerging issue discussed was the impact of anthropogenic 

underwater sound, which is also becoming a greater concern in other regions. A number of piledriving projects in the early 2000s resulted in fish kills, including a large one in San Francisco 

Bay, from the high intensity sound waves it produced. To assess the risk of future pile driving, 

the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group (FHWG), consisting of staff from state and federal 

agencies and experts on the effects of underwater sound, was created. This working group aims

to establish thresholds for underwater sounds generated by pile driving, find a way to assess the 

risks to fishes posed by those sounds, produce methods to minimize adverse effects, and to 

develop a standardized monitoring and reporting for projects that may produce harmful levels of

underwater sound. The lessons from the fish kills in the early 2000s increased awareness of the 
20

impacts of underwater sound and have allowed researchers to develop ways to reduce its adverse 

effects, not only in the Pacific, but also in other regions. Although the FHWG was initially 

focused on the sounds produced by pile driving, it recognizes there are other harmful 

anthropogenic sound sources and may address those in the future. 

The Southeast Region discussed three emerging issues it is currently working to resolve: liquid 

natural gas (LNG) facilities, sediment diversion projects, and invasive species. In many Gulf of 

Mexico LNG facilities, seawater is used to reheat liquid natural gas and is then discharged back 

into the ocean at about 20°C cooler than the ambient temperature. There was a time lag between 

the development of LNG facilities and the assessment of the potential effects of the discharge of 

cooled waters on fish stocks, but studies now show that about five billion fish eggs and larvae are 

killed per facility due to this cooled discharged water. The Southeast Region is also dealing with 

land subsidence and sea level rise. Currently, an estimated 1,800 square miles of land has been 

lost in Louisiana in the past 100 years, and sediment diversion projects began in 2000 in an 

attempt to reverse this loss. Hurricane Katrina changed the landscape in the state of Louisiana, 

making the identification of diversion projects a high priority. However, there were adverse 

impacts to EFH with these projects (water quality degradation, alterations to salinity, etc.). 

Recognizing the need for these diversion projects, a cross cutting regional interdisciplinary team 

was formed, and SERO developed a strategic plan to deal with mitigating adverse effects from 

the sediment diversion projects. These examples helped the Southeast region develop an 

effective way to deal with emerging issues: identify the issue, raise a concern, and get more 

attention to the issue even if it is not directly habitat-related. The Southeast is also beginning to 

consider the effects of invasive aquatic species, specifically the impacts of the invasive Orange 

Cup Coral (Tubastraea coccinea) and the invasive seagrass, Halophila stipulacea. The Southeast 

will use their experience with past emerging issues to deal with the threat of new aquatic 

invasive species.

Many of these emerging issues may have cumulative impacts. There was one clear takeaway 

across all regions: projects need coordination and cooperation between all parties involved for a 

successful EFH consultation.

Conclusions

● EFH consultations have been useful for strengthening relationships among federal 

partners, and in advancing agency-specific scientific and habitat conservation interests.

● Collaborations among federal agencies, councils, and NOAA Fisheries have allowed for 

effective leveraging of efforts for scientific investigations, management actions, and the 

incorporation of advanced sampling technologies toward EFH characterizations. 

Additionally, collaborations between the regions and action agencies are imperative to 

these efforts.

● NOAA Fisheries and the councils are addressing emerging threats and non-fishing 

impacts to EFH such as from natural gas and wind energy development, aquaculture, 

climate change, offshore mining, sediment diversions, invasive species, underwater 

sound, and their cumulative effects. 

● As new threats continue to emerge, EFH practitioners should seek opportunities to share 

information and conservation approaches across regions.
21

EFH Authorities in a Changing Environment

As changes in global environmental conditions continue, scientists and managers are focusing 

their efforts on accounting for evolving pressures that affect EFH. Foundational scientific studies 

that examine the effects of climate and human-related stressors on habitats and their dependent 

species, and that document needed information on species-habitat relationships, are crucial for 

ensuring the highest efficacy of adaptive management practices for EFH. 

However, few comprehensive habitat maps are available, and much work remains to be done to 

both systematically characterize habitats (including substrate and water column) and integrate 

this information with information on the ecology and productivity of managed species 

throughout their life cycles. Without baseline habitat data, numerous challenges persist in how to 

evaluate habitat and species dynamics in response to changing environmental conditions and 

apply EFH management mandates under these emerging scenarios. Research that informs 

scientifically sound habitat conservation practices and aids development of strategies to mitigate 

impacts to EFH and dependent species must continue be a top priority.

Conversations and presentations for this session at the EFH Summit focused on how best to use 

EFH authorities in a changing environment while examining science and management needs and 

innovations for their practicality. Efforts to continue identifying and describing EFH are 

ongoing, but large data gaps remain for addressing emerging threats, mapping habitats, and 

understanding habitat attributes, species interactions, and the role of habitat at the ecosystem 

level. All of these factors come into play in refining and describing EFH at greater resolutions, 

improving higher-level characterizations, examining and responding to how climate change may 

alter habitat quality, distribution, and use over time, and in improving the effectiveness of EFH 

consultations in accounting for emerging threats. Presentations reviewed habitat science 

advances, ecosystem modeling approaches, species-habitat predictions that include water column 

properties, habitat prioritizations across species life histories, and improved monitoring and 

mapping efforts for EFH. Additional topics of discussion focused on the key research questions 

that underlie the implementation and use of EFH authorities, the feasibility of addressing these 

questions, how habitat science advances are enabling scientists and managers to address these 

questions more effectively, and research limitations.

Advances in Habitat Science to Support EFH

Since the incorporation of EFH provisions into MSA, scientific efforts have focused on 

identifying, characterizing, and understanding the habitat requirements of managed fishery

species throughout their life histories. In 2010, NOAA Fisheries created the Habitat Assessment 

Improvement Plan (HAIP), which set the agency’s strategy for pursuing habitat science, 

developing more robust assessments for scientifically sound management of marine fisheries and 

their associated habitats, and guiding program priorities. The HAIP defines a habitat assessment 

as the process and the products associated with consolidating, analyzing, and reporting the best 

available information on habitat characteristics relative to the population dynamics of fishery 

species and other living marine resources. 

The HAIP set out two major goals: 1) reduce habitat-related uncertainty in stock assessments; 

and 2) create a scientific framework for improving the identification of EFH. To use agency 

resources effectively, regional habitat assessment prioritizations recommended in the HAIP are 
22

focusing scientific investigations on species whose assessments and EFH designations would 

most benefit from additional habitat information. However, as management priorities broaden to 

ecosystem scales, linking habitat efforts to EBFM also requires complementarily prioritizing taxa 

and habitats that are most vulnerable to human and natural pressures and systematically 

investigating relationships across stocks and habitats, as detailed in the EBFM Road Map. 

Increased use and application of advanced sampling technologies toward these efforts is also 

needed for further foundational habitat characterizations.

To build on addressing these needs and provide input for their advancement, habitat assessments 

have been developed for several species since the 2010 release of the HAIP. NOAA Fisheries 

has supported studies that incorporate habitat information into stock assessments and may be 

applied to refining EFH. A well-publicized example is work by John Manderson and colleagues 

at the NEFSC that examined temperature-dependent fluctuations in Butterfish habitat to account 

for shifts in their catch in fishery-independent surveys. Catch data were recalibrated to account 

for this effect on habitat and distribution, and applied toward refining the stock assessment that 

had previously underestimated their numbers. Ultimately, the Butterfish quota was increased 

seven-fold, from 3.2 million pounds in 2014 to 22.5 million pounds in 2015, and the stock was 

no longer declared as overfished (Adams et al. 2015).7 Other examples include studies that have 

improved catchability estimates of Alaska Snow Crab populations (resulting in an increase in 

their overfishing limits by 64%), provided habitat-specific growth and productivity rates of 

juvenile penaeid shrimps in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as habitat assessments for a suite of 

species including Summer Flounder and Winter Flounder, sardines, west coast groundfishes, and 

southeast reef fishes – all of which advance ecosystem modeling potential and can improve EFH 

designations.

Additionally, two National Habitat Assessment Workshops (NHAWs) were convened in 2010 

and 2012 to strengthen the community of habitat science and management practitioners, and 

identify priorities. One key takeaway of the second NHAW was realizing the important 

connection between inshore and offshore habitats, as many anthropogenic impacts and EFH 

consultations occur in estuaries and near the coast (where many nursery habitats occur), while 

the stocks managed by NOAA Fisheries are primarily harvested offshore. To resolve the high 

priority knowledge gap of quantitatively linking inshore habitats to offshore fisheries production, 

NOAA Fisheries supported three regional pilot projects to examine these connections for North 

Atlantic diadromous fishes and for Southern Flounder, and to inventory and assess West Coast 

nursery estuarine habitats. To continue investigations of this inshore-offshore relationship, 

budget initiatives have been developed for the agency, and successfully incorporated into the 

President’s Budget for FYs 2016 ($5M) and 2017 ($5.9M). Although these initiatives were not 

ultimately approved by Congress, their inclusions emphasize the importance of this work to the 

agency in meeting its EFH mandates.

Complementary efforts to make stock assessments more ecologically robust and to quantify 

inshore-offshore productivity, NOAA’s habitat science have also focused on improving EFH 

 7 Adams C. F., T. J. Miller, J. P. Manderson, D. E. Richardson, and B. E. Smith. 2015. Butterfish 2014 stock 

assessment. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 15-06. 

Available: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications. (March 2017).
23

level information. As most species information is Level 1 (presence/absence data), and Levels 2-

4 information (2 - density; 3 - vital rates including growth, reproduction, and survival; and 4 -

productivity data) is only available for a handful of species, NOAA Fisheries has supported 

studies to enhance EFH information. Examples include survey work by Rooper et al. in Gulf of 

Alaska benthic substrates where they quantified fish habitats. Their findings were incorporated 

into models to refine Alaska EFH, which moved their information to Level 2 species density 

descriptions. 

Applied understanding of the ecological role of habitat in marine ecosystems through habitat 

research and assessments can strengthen EBFM implementation. Because habitats are a relevant 

unit of analysis for EBFM, a more systematic approach to habitat characterization is warranted to 

better delineate EFH across multiple species. However, many data gaps remain in foundational 

habitat science. More robust habitat characterization efforts that incorporate ecological 

relationships and interactions of multiple managed species within identified habitats, and account 

for habitat connections (including inshore-offshore), will greatly enhance EFH designations, 

ecosystem modeling efforts, and the potential for EBFM to produce useful outcomes. Additional 

priorities include consideration of these factors under changing environmental scenarios and 

valuation of the ecosystem services that habitats provide, especially in light of increased human 

and climate-related stressors. 

Applying habitat science toward enhancing stock assessments, EBFM, and EFH designations for 

multiple species effectively requires efforts to prioritize resources, systematically examine 

remaining data gaps, apply new technologies to characterize unexamined areas, and gain 

continued support through budget initiatives and external partnerships are ongoing. Since the 

publication of the HAIP, NOAA Fisheries has supported research to improve habitat science and 

habitat assessments by funding short-term, small-scale projects. Building on these efforts, the 

agency is working to enhance support for habitat science through habitat-centric efforts,

including NOAA’s Habitat Blueprint8

, and by increasing habitat information that is available to 

ecosystem science efforts, such as NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program. 

Despite limited resources and budgetary challenges, advances in habitat science, and in the 

promotion of habitat conservation continue, and are being applied toward refining and 

characterizing EFH. Continued focus upon the habitat-dependent aspects of ecosystem processes 

and their dependent species will facilitate a more complete implementation of an ecosystem 

approach to management, and allow for the most scientifically sound conservation of our 

managed species, the habitats that support them, and the sustainability of our fisheries.

Ecosystem Modeling for Habitat Management

Habitat data support accurate EFH designations and are used directly by models that examine 

tactical management questions. Although habitats and fish stocks are inextricably linked, there 

has remained a certain disconnect between habitat science and other aspects of fisheries 

management. In stock assessments, habitat-mediated factors including catchability and species 

distribution could strongly influence population dynamics and the efficacy of fisheries 

management decisions, but habitat is not explicitly accounted for in most assessment models. 

 8 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). NOAA Habitat Blueprint. Available:

https://www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov
24

Ultimately, stock assessment science and management can inform habitat science and 

management (and vice-versa), and doing so requires making habitat information more 

quantitative and scalable while making fisheries information more spatial and integrative. Both 

disciplines support ecosystem modeling, which in turn can address many of the pertinent 

questions for effective fisheries and habitat management.

Fisheries resource management is focused on particular questions, such as whether a stock is 

subject to overfishing or is overfished, and depends on heuristic models to determine appropriate 

fishing levels. Moving beyond a typical single-species focus also requires knowledge of 

ecosystem function and processes to advance scientific theory, and for strategically assessing

tradeoffs. Strategic modeling can examine scenarios over longer timeframes, and is useful for 

linking stock assessments with habitat science and management. It allows for a spectrum of 

solutions, such as calculating values for data-limited variables, to examining biomass dynamics, 

or up to full system level modeling. Recent advances using Atlantis models allow 

biogeochemistry, climate, oceanography, and biogenic habitat information to be fed into multifisheries models and to investigate the best fisheries management strategies for a particular 

ecosystem. Some of this work has been applied to Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder 

populations and other coexisting species to measure their responses to tidal marsh habitat quality 

in a changing climate. Over time, biomass decreases for multiple species were observed in 

preliminary model outputs, and provided more environmental information regarding the 

importance of marsh habitat to the ecosystem. Atlantis models in Guam are used as a coastal 

model to examine the impacts of land-use on fisheries and coral reefs. All of this information can 

be used to inform decision making for habitat conservation at multiple scales and identify further 

information needs as environmental pressures change. 

Fisheries scientists have been applying ecosystem models to consider the consequences of 

coastal and offshore development on fishery species and the ecosystem-level effects of habitat 

restoration projects, including how marsh rebuilding efforts may enhance fisheries. These efforts 

can bring multiple groups together and work as good starting points for addressing EFH-related 

habitat and fisheries questions in a changing environment.

Nowcasting Seascape Dynamics to Better Estimate Past and Future Species-Habitat Distributions

Marine habitats cannot be examined solely based on ocean bottom structures and must consider 

the water column as well. Historically, habitats were defined using G.E. Hutchinson’s species 

niche concept (1957)9 to include the conditions that affect population growth. A niche is multidimensional, encompassing multiple factors including temperature, oxygen, food availability, 

solute concentrations, etc., all of which can be displayed in time and space to define the habitat

used by a particular species and lifestage. Niches should be defined based on vital rates of a 

given species, within the context of the environment of interest. While Hutchinson’s original 

focus was on population dynamics, habitat scientists are also examining individual vital rates 

such as survival, development, growth, reproductive power, and migration, and all of these 

factors feed into population growth. 

 9 Hutchinson G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22:415–427
25

Underlying these population-level estimates is a link to species metabolism for which speciesdependent requirements of water, oxygen, pH, food, solute concentrations, temperature, and 

hydrostatic pressure are needed for optimal metabolic rates. To meet these requirements, an 

organism may either select an external environment (habitat) that most closely matches these 

needs, or internally regulate them physiologically through energy expenditure. By examining the 

physical properties of the oceanic water column, one may determine the degree to which marine 

organisms can use habitat selection to optimize their metabolic performances. Because life in 

liquid exists in a significantly more concentrated environment than air, differences in solutes, 

oxygen, density, and viscosity greatly influence a species’ habitat. Thus, hydrodynamics,

including circulation and mixing, contribute fundamentally to marine habitats and seascape 

hydrology.

Oceanic properties are being observed in real time with buoys and regional Integrated Ocean 

Observing Systems (IOOS) to complement satellite observations of optical properties, radarbased measurements of currents, and the use of underwater gliders to measure temperature. All 

of this information allows for accurate simulations of spatiotemporal ocean patterns at multiple 

scales, including at a 1-kilometer resolution. As regional stock surveys are designed for assessing 

populations and not habitat, this restricts their focus to larger scales, and can limit their 

integration with oceanic parameters to only coarse-scale temperature and salinity information. 

However, laboratory and field experiments can quantify species and organismal vital rates that 

can be used in biophysical models, and advanced sampling technologies including gliders, tags, 

and sensors can measure needed information telemetrically, and at smaller scales. Additionally, 

collaborative research with the fishing industry and community can gather needed data at the 

scales of species and habitat interactions, which can be examined with complementary

environmental information. Advances have been made to tie data collected by squid, mackerel, 

and herring fleets with species population dynamics and seascape and global economic variables. 

Working together with the fishing industry to collect empirical data can directly inform seascape 

models, advance more efficient fishing practices, and build needed trust among scientists, 

managers, and fishers. Ultimately, complementing fishery-dependent information with IOOS 

data can advance ecosystem-based assessments, refine habitat information, and improve 

ecological forecasting efforts in light of rapidly changing conditions.

Prioritizing Habitat Conservation Across Ontogeny and Species

Habitat requirements of living marine resources vary by species and ontogenetic life stage. As 

efforts to examine habitat use patterns across combinations of species and life stages evolve, 

prioritization of consistently important habitat types and locations for conservation must occur at 

tractable scales. Patterns of habitat use can be analyzed using software such as MARXAN to 

characterize marine areas using a matrix of specific cross-shelf habitat types and geomorphic 

zones. With this information, priority habitat/location combinations can be identified for a given 

species and ontogenetic life stage, and changes in these combinations can be examined 

throughout species life histories and as they vary across species. As applied to Caribbean reef 

fishes, juvenile Doctorfish (Acanthurus chirurgus) use different habitat/location combinations 

than mature individuals, while several species of parrotfish inhabit outer shelf areas more 

regularly than other species. By overlaying habitat use for all species on the matrix, this method 

can identify the highest priority combinations. Iterative runs of the software can provide a 
26

frequency of selection for cells that show up as important, and identify areas that are centers for 

productivity.

If all habitats are essential to at least one species, then prioritization of locations for conservation

can be based on functional habitat diversity, which in turn can serve as a surrogate for species 

distribution patterns and increase focus on habitat connectivity issues. Connectivity is needed for 

species to move and acquire resources, and both habitat diversity and productivity can enhance 

connectivity. For Caribbean reef fishes, functional habitats include particular reefs, uncolonized 

hard bottoms, and vegetated habitats, including seagrasses and mangroves. Connections between 

these habitat types at the scale of feeding or ontogenetic migrations should be factored into the 

prioritization process. Larger scale evaluations that include all habitats in a single area must also 

consider limitations of larval dispersal.

Monitoring, Modeling, and Mapping Demersal Communities in Untrawlable Habitats

One challenge for defining EFH has been in classifying habitats for deep-water demersal species 

that occur in complex, high relief substrates. Over 100 species of US west coast rockfish are 

managed in the bottomfish complex, and are found at depths greater than 50 meters. As most 

groundfish data come from trawl surveys, which generally occur in low relief habitats, little 

information has been collected about deep-water bottomfish. Advances in characterizing deep 

water rockfishes, demersal communities, and deep sea coral habitats have included increased use 

of visual count surveys with manned submersibles and Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) to 

collect information on fish abundance and size; coral identification, size, and condition; habitat 

and bottom type; marine relief; marine debris; and environmental data (including temperature, 

salinity, etc.). All information can be georeferenced and examined with spatial analyses. As 

individual species have specific habitat preferences, they form guilds associated with particular 

habitats, and these guilds generally extend throughout the west coast.

Community structure of these deep-water demersal species can be assessed by using 

environmental gradients to find explanatory variables, with work by Yoklavich and colleagues at 

the SWFSC showing that 75% of the variability influencing bottomfish distribution was 

explained by depth and percent rocky substrate. Visual survey data have been used to locate and 

monitor MPAs in deep waters for Federal and State governments, and to protect vulnerable 

habitats to create a first phase network of west coast marine reserves that build on 124 created 

MPAs. Additionally, these visual surveys have been used to identify and inform placement of 

Pacific Coast Groundfish EFH Conservation Areas (EFHCAs). As these sites cannot be regularly 

monitored, visual data have been coupled with mapped seafloor information to predict 

abundance and distribution of rockfishes and to examine Pacific Coast MPA and EFHCA 

effectiveness. Point observations of species density and biomass were overlain with gridded 

seafloor habitat data that was derived from 5-meter resolution digital elevation model. These data 

were used to create a generalized additive model (GAM) to inform stock assessments and EFH 

consultations, quantify habitat capacity, prioritize habitats for conservation, and evaluate 

potential risks to stocks. 

The visual surveys provide a more complete understanding of an ecosystem for which traditional 

survey methods are poorly suited, and this non-extractive, non-destructive method can be used to 

assess fish species and structure forming organisms. However, as these ecosystems have already 
27

been altered by humans and natural stressors, there are certain challenges in assessing their 

habitats, while submersible and ROV technologies additionally can affect fish behaviors. Rocky 

areas are dominated by small weedy species, which are devoid of large fishes, while ongoing 

removal of and damage to large corals has reduced coral habitat quality. There are almost no 

baseline data on pre-fishery assemblages, and limited amounts of patchy rocky habitats exist to 

support these species. Spatially specific habitat data are often limited, with California 

bathymetric data being essential to characterization and protection efforts. As there is no ongoing 

monitoring plan, more funding is needed to initiate regular coastwide visual surveys to sample 

habitats that are beyond the capability of standard trawling gears and to support high resolution 

mapping with multibeam technologies in untrawlable (and other) habitats. Continuation of these 

efforts would work to increase their conservation effectiveness and advance refinement of EFH 

for deep-water species.

Discussion

Presenters summarized their research in terms of how it can support effective EFH 

implementation. NOAA Fisheries supports science that provides better information to define and 

manage EFH, and studies that address habitat-related uncertainty in stock assessments. For 

councils and other managers, looking at habitat use across species and life stages helps to 

identify centers of production and spawning grounds, which can be linked to stock assessments 

and increase resolution of EFH designations. There is also a need for broader modeling efforts 

that expand beyond coasts to address how terrestrial factors and upstream human development 

impact EFH. Additionally, the surveys that are being undertaken by scientists are helping to 

identify and describe EFH, which cannot be protected if its spatial extent is unknown. Predictive 

models can help to fill in information gaps.

Audience participants were interested in how best to incorporate spatial habitat modeling into 

stock assessments. Panelists answered that several approaches to do so include making stock 

assessments more spatial, improving habitat monitoring frequencies, examining habitat 

productivity, and reducing observation and process error by appropriately scaling habitat 

variables (i.e., mortality as related to habitat type) into stock assessment vectors. Reasons for 

resistance to incorporating these factors into stock assessments were also discussed, such as the 

pressures on assessment scientists that require conservative, accurate, less complex assessments, 

much foundational habitat work that remains to be done, data poor models, and potential 

unfamiliarity in how to add more parameters. Additional considerations include time constraints 

in completing assessments, and conservative approaches toward managing fisheries and in 

dealing with stakeholders. These issues are also compounded by irregular contemplation of 

changes to assessments (usually coinciding with benchmarks), and challenges in implementing 

wholesale changes to approaches. 

Questions about deep-sea coral habitat vulnerability to fishing gears, aquaculture, and alternative 

energy were also addressed, as were recommendations to improve model input through better 

engagement of biologists and stakeholders familiar with particular systems. 

Presenters also remarked on their future research interests including:

● Improved incorporation of socio-economic information into models.
28

● Advancing deep-water visual surveys to address data collection and analysis biases and 

stock assessment needs.

● Using telemetric methods for gathering needed bathymetric and habitat data, and 

applying the information toward protecting key locations that are important to stocks 

during their life histories.

● Applying habitat science toward protected species and critical habitat designations.

● More ground-truthing of oceanic habitat models through collaborative research with the 

fishing industry.

EFH in a Changing Climate Breakout Sessions

Three breakout sessions were convened to discuss EFH in a changing climate. Each group 

consisted of scientists from fisheries science centers, members of regional fishery management 

councils, and managers from regional offices involved with research, EFH designation, or EFH 

consultations. One main issue was agreed upon by all groups – climate change effects on EFH 

are complex and more resources are needed to advance our understanding. In each of the three 

groups, similar issues were apparent: climate change is affecting each region differently, current 

EFH designations are based on historical data, and broad EFH descriptions that lack key seasonal 

habitat use information are of little value to understand potential long-term impacts of certain 

actions on fisheries.

Climate change is affecting each region of the United States differently, causing scientists, 

managers, and council members to apply their EFH authorities in different ways. For example, 

managers in the Southeast Region are just starting to discuss climate change, while managers and 

council members in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast are already dealing with its effects, such as 

shifts in species distributions that necessitate changes in the management of the affected

fisheries. Anticipating these effects creates difficulties when EFH is being designated, and during 

EFH consultations. One particular concern brought up by scientists is the potential disparity in 

the pace at which the effects of climate change may occur as compared to the timeframe in 

which certain species may be managed, and that gaps still exist in the baseline data that could be 

used to assess climate-related changes in habitat use and availability. This point then led to the 

next issue – EFH is based on historical data.

EFH is reviewed and updated, if necessary, every five years, but updates often take longer. This 

creates difficulty during EFH consultations, because managers may be forced to rely on older

data that may be less relevant to current conditions. For instance, a species may have recently

vacated a particular habitat, but the EFH designation may not reflect these recent changes. 

Managers agree that EFH needs to be updated to account for climate change effects, especially 

since EFH consultations try to anticipate future impacts and habitat use. Climate-related factors 

are likely to affect the future of many projects that are being completed, but accurately projecting 

the magnitude of their effects throughout the lifetime of the project can be challenging. 

Currently, scientists and councils are working together during reviews to get the most recent data 

for updated designations, but this can take a long time and data gaps still exist in many cases. 

During this discussion, the next issue arose – the definition of EFH is very broad.

Many EFH designations are based only on Level 1 (presence/absence) or Level 2 (density) data, 

with Level 3-4 data (growth, reproduction, survival; production rate) available for a much 

smaller number of species in certain regions. Having habitat-specific vital rates for each species 
29

will help narrow EFH designations. This information will also assist in predicting climate change 

effects on EFH, which will help in future designations and consultations. Council members and 

managers recognize the benefits of prioritizing habitat and moving towards Level 4 data in EFH 

designations. A federal action agency representative mentioned they would be better able to 

gauge the impacts of their projects if, instead of just having information on the presence of a 

species, they knew that the habitat they were affecting was responsible for increasing the growth, 

survival, or productivity of a population. Even though more advanced understanding is preferred, 

limited resources inhibit moving from Level 1 to Level 4 data for most species. In light of these 

limitations, scientists, managers, and council staff are working towards identifying habitats that 

are essential for multiple species. This will assist in prioritizing EFH locations, which will 

benefit designations and consultations while efforts to improve knowledge of habitat-specific 

vital rates and productivity are ongoing.

In all three breakout discussions, participants agreed that climate change effects on EFH are 

complex and data gaps are hindering the understanding of future effects. However, coordination 

among scientists and managers on this issue will help each group reach the shared goal of 

understanding and mitigating the effects of climate change on fisheries and EFH.

Conclusions

● Advances in EFH science and habitat assessments for fisheries species have increased 

since the 2010 publication of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Assessment Improvement Plan 

(HAIP), and scientific efforts are now being incorporated into an ecosystem and EBFM 

context.

● Large data gaps remain for addressing emerging threats, characterizing habitats, and 

understanding habitat attributes, species interactions, and the role of habitat at the 

ecosystem level.

● Information from ecosystem models can be used to inform decision making at multiple 

scales, examine emerging scenarios, and bring multiple groups together to address habitat 

and fisheries questions in a changing environment.

● Marine habitats consist of both ocean bottom structure and the water column, and 

information gathered from cooperative research with the fishing community and from 

using oceanographic data, including from in-situ Integrated Ocean Observing Systems,

can improve our understanding of EFH and seascape ecological forecasting.

● EFH and habitat connectivity can be examined using a multi-species matrix lens 

throughout species’ life histories to identify high-priority areas for protection and 

productivity.

● Using visual surveys and advanced sampling technologies to characterize deepwater 

and/or untrawlable habitats has led to the development of predictive models to inform 

species’ habitat use patterns, and the establishment of several EFH conservation areas.

● Climate change effects on EFH are complex and differ by region. More data, resources, 

and improved coordination among scientists, and managers is necessary for advancing 

our understanding of these effects, and for maintaining habitat integrity and sustainable 

fisheries.
30

EFH and EBFM

Day three of the EFH summit began with a presentation from NOAA Fisheries Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries on the relationship between EFH and EBFM, and on how each supports the 

other. Currently, many regional fishery management councils are working to implement EBFM, 

with most developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan for their region. Examples were provided on 

how EFH can serve as a tool for EBFM, such as when considering EFH for forage fish, or the 

ecosystem effects from potential species biomass increases in conservation actions that are based 

on EFH designations.

Following this introduction, examples of how habitat science can support EBFM were presented. 

One presentation highlighted how habitat indicators (quality, quantity, and pressure) are being 

used for the California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA).10 Recognizing that 

species rely on different habitats, four macrohabitats were identified, and habitat indicators were 

mapped for each of the macrohabitats in four ecoregions of the CCIEA. The habitat indicators 

were developed in this study by establishing a relationship between the indicator and attribute of 

interest. These indicators were applied by creating a decision rule based on the relationship, 

monitoring changes in the indicator to determine effectiveness with respect to management 

action, then reassessing periodically. Habitat indicators have the potential to be used in EBFM by 

creating habitat based reference points for fisheries management, assessing cumulative effects in 

each area, and by examining climate change metrics for each habitat. For future success, it would 

be beneficial to move from identifying single species EFH to determining habitats that are 

essential to multiple species. Finding these habitat guilds will make EFH more useful in an 

EBFM framework by prioritizing habitat that is essential for multiple species complexes. This 

presentation suggested ways to use EFH to advance EBFM by defining aspects of EFH that are 

temporally dynamic or responsive to management, developing habitat indicators to track, 

targeting habitat science to determine species guilds that respond to habitat variation, and 

addressing habitat management in a multi-stock context.

After the presentations, breakout groups discussed how EFH and EBFM intersect in each region. 

All groups discussed the lack of fundamental habitat data, since all regions are still dealing with 

Level 1 (presence/absence) data for EFH instead of more advanced data, which could hinder the 

ability to prioritize habitats for EFH designation. Participants from all regions agreed on the 

implicit links between EFH and EBFM, since protecting habitat can benefit ecosystem 

productivity and work to conserve multiple managed stocks. The current EFH authorities make it 

possible to identify ecologically important areas, and help prioritize research that will feed into 

EBFM. Regions discussed two examples of management approaches being used in different 

regions: space-based and forage-based. Both of these management approaches link EFH and 

EBFM, especially since forage-based management considers incorporating forage fish as habitat. 

Some regions, like the Northeast and Southeast, are working on progressing from single-species 

stock assessments to EAFM, EBFM, and eventually EBM. Even though some data gaps exist, all 

regions agreed having a stronger focus on EBFM would advance thinking on EFH.

 10 The California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. 

https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/regions/california-current-region/index.html
31

A broad-ranging full group discussion on the relationship between EFH and EBFM took place 

after the breakout group discussions. Throughout there was a consistent focus on strengthening 

the connection between EFH and EBFM. Management strategies may already acknowledge and 

make the connection between EFH and EBFM, and participants noted that it is important to 

communicate that this connection is already intact. For example, some spatial management exists 

to protect EFH (e.g., closures for spawning aggregations), which is also a form of EBM. These 

connections are also apparent when recognizing that ecosystem processes influence the amount 

and location of EFH. 

One problem that was realized is that current spatial management has mainly been used in 

offshore habitats, and more management of inshore habitats is needed. There was agreement that 

information on the link between inshore and offshore production is missing, and increased

understanding of this connection is important for both EFH and EBFM.

Ultimately, approaches using both EFH and EBFM support fisheries management, which is 

dependent upon advancements in habitat and ecosystem science. When communicating the 

benefits of EFH designations and EBFM to the fishing industry and other groups, it should be 

emphasized that ecosystem approaches may actually lead to more and better quality fish, not 

reductions in catch limits. Even though more must be done to move towards EBFM, and to 

integrate it more strongly with EFH, this discussion raised clear examples of successes in doing 

so. For example, with the implementation of the National Ocean Policy, Regional Ocean 

Planning Bodies have been working towards EBM by delineating important areas of the ocean 

based on the spatial distribution of resources and resource users. These efforts will benefit future 

protection of HAPCs and other important habitats. Through increased communication and 

coordination between different habitat professionals, solidifying the link between EFH and 

EBFM is possible.

Conclusions

● EFH can serve as a tool for EBFM just as EBFM can serve as a tool for identifying and 

designating EFH, and there have been successful examples of habitat information 

informing the EBFM process.

● Current spatial management has mainly been used in offshore habitats, and more 

understanding on the link between inshore and offshore production is needed to improve 

the scientific basis for EFH designations, EBFM, and habitat protection.

● Improving basic understanding of the connections between habitat, ecosystem processes, 

and the fisheries that they support will improve ecosystem management.

Summary and Conclusions

The following themes and findings emerged during multiple discussions and sessions. Some of 

these topics (e.g., goals and objectives) are not addressed by the Terms of Reference or in a 

particular session, but came up repeatedly at the Summit. Other topics (e.g., EBFM) did support 

a focused session and came up frequently in the context of other discussions. Further exploring 

these themes and findings will help EFH practitioners improve the effectiveness of the national 

EFH program and result in more focused habitat conservation and fishery management.
32

Defining “essential” will remain a key challenge: The community of EFH practitioners has 

articulated what they view as fundamental questions and considerations underlying the effective 

use of EFH authorities and determining what habitats are truly “essential” to maintaining 

productive fisheries. Discussion often circled around whether EFH should be more or less 

inclusive, what it means to refine EFH, whether EFH designations should reflect the past or 

anticipate the future, how EFH information should be organized, whether EFH should be static 

or dynamic, among others. Some of these points are tractable; others may not have answers but 

are important for framing discussion and decision-making.

Establishing goals and objectives is a crucial first step to EFH conservation: The “effective” use 

of EFH authorities, and what constitutes “essential,” “successful,” “practicable,” etc., depends on 

having a clearly defined intent, purpose, or endpoint. It would be valuable for NOAA Fisheries, 

councils, and the fishing community to clearly define such goals and objectives before initiating 

scientific and management actions related to EFH.

Maintaining fishery productivity is an important end goal that should guide EFH identification 

and conservation activities: Habitat protection is critical to maintaining ecosystem and fishery 

productivity. It is important to more clearly recognize this intersection, and to use EFH 

authorities as a tool to implement EBFM.

Providing a “voice” for fisheries, building relationships, and collaboration are critical to effective 

conservation: The EFH consultation authority connects the fisheries management community 

with a much larger network of agencies, stakeholders, and potential partners and collaborators, 

and provides the opportunity for fishery managers to communicate priorities and needs. Such 

networks are critical to ensure that fish habitat receives appropriate consideration during federal 

decision-making. Effective habitat conservation is heavily reliant on strong relationships 

between scientists and managers, between NOAA Fisheries and federal action agencies, and 

among the fishing community, the councils, and NOAA Fisheries.

NOAA Fisheries, councils, and the fishing community must work together to address habitat 

science and data gaps: The availability of habitat science and data, and the challenges of funding 

habitat research, were common threads throughout all topics discussed at the EFH Summit. The 

mixed audience of managers, support staff, and scientists identified habitat science needs and 

questions that resonate with the EFH community, as well as with the broader fisheries 

management community. It is clear that NOAA Fisheries, councils, and the fishing community 

benefit from seeking opportunities to collaborate with other agencies and non-traditional 

organizations to fill habitat science and data gaps to identify and describe EFH.

Implementing national mandates requires regional flexibility: The regional implementation of 

EFH mandates reflects regional contexts and relationships, and leads to regional diversity, 

innovations, and adaptations. Regional differences in approaches exist for identifying, 

describing, reviewing, and conserving EFH, and such flexibility is important to maintain.

All EFH practitioners should strive to build a community of practice, maintain communication, 

and develop effective working relationships: The fisheries management community benefits 

from the opportunity for EFH practitioners to learn from one another and share regional 
33

experiences, as well as to maintain effective communication between councils and the agency. 

Sharing tools and technology can further advance each region’s EFH designations and provide 

insight into alternatives for EFH conservation recommendations. At the Summit, the final report 

out and group discussion following the regional breakouts reinforced the value of ongoing 

learning and information exchange across regions.
34

Appendix A – Agenda

National Essential Fish Habitat Summit

May 17-19, 2016 ● Annapolis, MD ● Westin Annapolis

FINAL AGENDA

Workshop Partners

NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation ● NOAA Fisheries Office of Science & Technology

Council Coordination Committee ● Fisheries Leadership & Sustainability Forum

EFH Summit Objective

The purpose of the EFH Summit is to assess and identify opportunities, challenges, and successful approaches for 

the effective implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act EFH authorities.

Terms of Reference:

1. Share perspectives on successful approaches to EFH designation and review.

2. Consider approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of actions taken to minimize adverse effects of 

fishing on EFH.

3. Identify opportunities to ensure effective communication between NOAA Fisheries and councils on the 

implementation and use of EFH authorities, including the EFH consultation process. 

4. Identify opportunities to integrate habitat information into the fishery management process and 

ecosystem-based fisheries management.

5. Consider how advances in habitat science can support the effective implementation and use of EFH 

authorities, and identify opportunities and challenges to aligning habitat science with management needs.

Registration will begin at 7:30 am outside the main meeting room, Capitol D.
35

Tuesday, May 17th ● Where are we now?

8:30 – 9:15 am Opening remarks and discussion

● Carrie Selberg, NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation

● Bill Tweit, North Pacific Fishery Management Council and Council Coordination 

Committee

● Katie Latanich, Fisheries Forum

● John Boreman, North Carolina State University; MAFMC SSC 

● Group discussion

➔ What opportunities exist to build professional networks among scientists, 

managers, and staff with EFH responsibilities?

➔ What do you hope to gain from your participation in the EFH Summit? How 

can the EFH Summit support your work?

9:15 – 10:30 am Regional roundtable: Identifying and reviewing EFH and HAPCs

● New England – Michelle Bachman, NEFMC

● Mid-Atlantic – Jessica Coakley, MAFMC

● Atlantic HMS – Jennifer Cudney, NMFS/OSF

● South Atlantic – Roger Pugliese, SAFMC

● Gulf of Mexico – Claire Roberts, GMFMC

● Caribbean – Graciela Garcia-Moliner, CFMC 

● North Pacific – Steve MacLean, NPFMC

● Western Pacific – Rebecca Walker, WPRFMC

● Pacific – John Stadler, NMFS/WCRO

10:30 – 10:45 am Break

10:45 – 12:00 pm Regional roundtable (continued) 

● Regional approaches (continued)

● Group discussion

➔ What factors contribute to different regional approaches to EFH and HAPC 

identification and review?

➔ What works well for your region, and why? What have you learned from 

your region’s experience?

12:00 – 1:15 pm Lunch (on your own)
36

1:15 – 2:45 pm Translating habitat science into fishery management decisions

● The science and process behind habitat management areas in New England –

Michelle Bachman, NEFMC and David Stevenson, NMFS/GARFO

● Habitat science in Alaska: It starts with a plan. – Matt Eagleton, NMFS/AKRO, 

John Olson, NMFS/AKRO, and Chris Rooper, NMFS/AKFSC

● A comprehensive strategy to identify and conserve Pacific Coast Groundfish 

EFH: Has it succeeded? – Waldo Wakefield, NMFS/NWFSC and John Stadler, 

NMFS/WCRO

● Group discussion

2:45 – 3:00 pm Break

3:00 – 4:15 pm Facilitated breakout discussions: Practicability and effectiveness 

Participants will be divided into three breakout groups including a mix of roles/regions. 

Fisheries Forum facilitators.

➔ What objectives, tradeoffs, and considerations are shaping your region’s 

implementation of EFH authorities?

➔ How is practicability discussed and determined in your region?

➔ What are the opportunities and challenges to evaluating the effectiveness 

of EFH-related decisions? 

4:15 – 5:00 pm Full group discussion

Fisheries forum facilitators

➔ From your perspective, what constitutes “successful” or “effective” 

implementation and use of EFH authorities?

➔ Is the identification of EFH a gradual process of refinement? A process of 

innovation and reinvention? Why?

The Fisheries Forum will host a networking reception, 5:30 – 7:30 pm at Level, 69 West Street. All 

participants are invited to attend!
37

Wednesday, May 18th ● EFH authorities in a changing environment

8:30 – 8:45 am Introduction and Day 1 review

Fisheries Forum facilitators

8:45 – 10:30 am Advances in habitat science to support EFH

● Habitat science orientation – Steve Brown, NMFS/OST

● Ecosystem modeling for habitat management - Howard Townsend, NMFS/OHC 

● Nowcasting seascape dynamics to better estimate past and future specieshabitat distributions - John Manderson, NMFS/NEFSC

● Prioritizing habitat across ontogeny and species – Richard Appeldoorn, 

University of Puerto Rico; CFMC SSC 

● Monitoring, modeling, and mapping demersal communities in untrawlable 

habitats - Mary Yoklavich, NMFS/SWFSC 

➔ What are the key research questions underlying the implementation and use 

of EFH authorities?

➔ Which questions are possible and feasible to address? How are advances in 

habitat science enabling us to address these questions more effectively?

➔ What are the limitations? Are any questions impossible to answer? 

10:30 – 10:45 am Break

10:45 – 12:00 pm Facilitated breakout discussions: EFH authorities in a changing environment

Participants will be divided into three breakout groups including a mix of roles/regions. 

Fisheries Forum facilitators.

➔ How might climate change impact the effectiveness of actions to identify 

and conserve EFH, including through the EFH consultation process? Why—

and how—might the use of EFH authorities need to adapt? 

➔ How could EFH authorities be used to support climate resilience?

➔ What are the key questions, concerns, and uncertainties to consider? 

12:00 – 1:15 pm Lunch (on your own)

1:15 – 3:30 pm EFH consultations and effective council-agency communication

● Introduction to the EFH consultation process – Karen Greene, NMFS/GARFO 

● Council-agency communication and EFH consultations 

● Pace Wilber, NMFS/SERO 

● Jessica Coakley, MAFMC 

● Matt Eagleton, NMFS/AKRO
38

● Regional EFH Coordinators - Emerging issues roundtable

o Danielle Jayewardene, NMFS/PIRO

o Karen Greene, NMFS/GARFO 

o Matt Eagleton, NMFS/AKRO

o John Stadler, NMFS/WCRO

o David Dale, NMFS/SERO 

● Group discussion

➔ What pathways exist for council-agency communication related to EFH 

consultations?

➔ What level of council engagement and awareness of EFH consultations is 

beneficial, and why? What are the opportunities and challenges to 

effective council engagement?

➔ How might emerging issues and development activities influence the need 

for communication among regions and management partners?

3:30 – 3:45 pm Break

3:45 – 5:00 pm Habitat networks and opportunities for collaboration 

● Gerry Davis, NMFS/PIRO 

● Pace Wilber, NMFS/SERO 

● Lou Chiarella, NMFS/GARFO

● Vince Guida, NMFS/NEFSC

● Group discussion

➔ What collaborations and partnerships does your council, region, or science 

center participate in? What is the purpose? (E.g. information sharing, 

coordination, communicating research priorities, etc.)

➔ How are collaborations and partnerships initiated and maintained? What 

makes them successful?
39

Thursday May 19th ● Looking ahead

8:30 – 8:45 am Introduction and Day 2 review

Fisheries Forum facilitators

8:45 – 10:30 am EFH authorities and ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM)

● A national perspective on EFH as a tool for EBFM – Karen Abrams, NMFS/OSF

● Habitat indicators for the California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment –

Correigh Greene, NMFS/NWFSC

● Group discussion 

➔ How can habitat conservation be used as a strategy to implement EBFM?

➔ How can EFH authorities be leveraged to support regional EBFM 

approaches?

➔ In the context of your region, how could EFH information be organized to 

support EBFM most effectively?

10:30 – 10:45 am Break

10:45 – 12:00 am Facilitated breakout discussions: Regional discussions 

Participants will break out into groups by region. NOAA Fisheries facilitators. 

➔ What challenges, emerging issues, and new opportunities do you think will 

influence your region’s use of EFH authorities in the future?

➔ What discussions at the EFH Summit were most informative to your work? 

What new ideas and information will you take back to your region?

12:00 – 1:15 pm Lunch (on your own)

1:15 – 2:30 pm Full group report back and discussion: Looking ahead

Each regional group will present highlights of their region’s discussion.

2:30 – 3:00 pm Wrap up and closing remarks

Adjourn
40

Appendix B – Planning Groups

The following individuals provided significant insight and input to the EFH Summit planning 

process:

Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum:

Kim Gordon, Caitlin Hamer, Katie Latanich.

EFH Summit Steering Committee:

Michelle Bachman, Jessica Coakley, David Dale, John Froeschke, Correigh Greene, Kirsten 

Larsen, Lauren Latchford, Terra Lederhouse, Steve MacLean, Becky Walker.

EFH Summit Advisory Group:

John Boreman, Lou Chiarella, Michelle Duval, Carlos Farchette, Kara Meckley, Tom Nies, Tom 

Noji, Bill Tweit.

CCC Habitat Workgroup:

Michelle Bachman, Jessica Coakley, David Dale, Matt Eagleton, John Froeschke, Graciela 

Garcia-Moliner, Karen Greene, Morgan Kilgour, Kirsten Larsen, Lauren Latchford, Terra 

Lederhouse, Steve MacLean, Tony Marshak, John Olson, Roger Pugliese, Claire Roberts, Bob 

Schroeder, John Stadler, Becky Walker.
41

Appendix C – Participants

Name Affiliation

Abrams, Karen NMFS/OSF

Anderson, Lee MAFMC Vice Chairman

Appeldoorn, Richard CFMC SSC Chairman

Atkinson, Alex NMFS/OHC

Bachman, Michelle NEFMC staff

Bankey, Laura National Aquarium

Beard, Kristy NMFS/GARFO

Bigford, Tom American Fisheries Society

Boreman, John MAFMC SSC Chairman

Brady, Bonnie Long Island Commercial Fishing Association

Brock, Robert NOS/ONMS

Brown, Steve NMFS/OST

Chesney, Bryant NMFS/WCRO

Chiarella, Lou NMFS/GARFO

Coakley, Jessica MAFMC staff

Colden, Allison Restore America’s Estuaries

Cooper, Peter NMFS/OSF/HMS

Cruz Lizama, Becky NOAA/OLIA

Cudney, Jen NMFS/OSF/HMS

Culbertson, Jennifer Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Dale, David NMFS/SERO

Davis, Gerry NMFS/PIRO

DeAngelis, Bryan The Nature Conservancy

Deem, Jeff Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Finfish Mgmt Advisory 

Committee

DeMello, Josh WPRFMC staff

Diaz, Dale GMFMC member

Duval, Michelle SAFMC Chairman

Eagleton, Matt NMFS/AKRO

Fay, Virginia NMFS/SERO

Ford, Kathryn NEFMC Habitat PDT member

Garcia-Moliner, Graciela CFMC staff

Gauvin, John Alaska Seafood Cooperative

Gerke, Brandee NMFS/AKRO

Gittings, Steve NOS/ONMS

Greene, Karen NMFS/GARFO

Greene, Correigh NMFS/NWFSC

Guida, Vince NMFS/NEFSC

Harris, Janine NMFS/OHC

Hawkins, Annie Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Haymans, Doug SAFMC member
42

Hoellen, Kris National Aquarium

Hooker, Brian Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Ihde, Tom NMFS/HC/NCBO

Ito, Daniel NMFS/AFSC

Jayewardene, Danielle NMFS/PIRO

Kellison, Todd NMFS/SEFSC

Kellogg, Chris NEFMC staff

Kelly, Moira NMFS/GARFO

Kilgour, Morgan GMFMC staff

Larsen, Kirsten NMFS/OST

Latchford, Lauren NMFS/OHC

Lederhouse, Terra NMFS/OHC

Lockhart, Frank NMFS/WCRO

Luisi, Mike MAFMC Vice Chairman

MacLean, Steve NPFMC staff

Magliocca, Michelle NMFS/GARFO

Manderson, John NMFS/NEFSC

Marshak, Tony NMFS/OST

Masterton, Molly Natural Resources Defense Council

Matthews, Kathryn Oceana

Meaney, Chris NMFS/OHC

Meckley, Kara NMFS/OHC

Minkiewicz, Drew Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Moore, Meredith The Pew Charitable Trusts

Moore, Peter MAFMC AP member

Moustahfid, Hassan NOS/IOOS

Olson, John NMFS/AKRO

Odell, Jay The Nature Conservancy

Packer, Dave NMFS/NEFSC

Parke, Michael NMFS/PIFSC

Pessutti, Jeff NMFS/NEFSC

Pool, Taylor American Fisheries Society

Pugliese, Roger SAFMC staff

Quinn, John NEFMC Vice Chairman

Recht, Fran Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

Roberts, Claire GMFMC staff

Rogers, Stan NMFS/OHC

Rooper, Chris NMFS/AFSC

Seagraves, Rich MAFMC staff

Selberg, Carrie NMFS/OHC

Smith, Tyler CFMC SSC member

Stadler, John NMFS/WCRO

Stedman, Susan-Marie NMFS/OHC

Stein, Sarah NMFS/OST

Stevenson, David NMFS/GARFO

Swafford, Russell NMFS/SERO
43

Swasey, Jill MRAG Americas, Inc.

Tate, TJ National Aquarium

Townsend, Howard NMFS/OHC

Tweit, Bill NPFMC Vice Chairman

Waine, Michael NMFS/OSF

Wakefield, Waldo NMFS/NWFSC

Walker, Rebecca WPRFMC staff

Wenzel, Lauren NOS/ONMS

Wilber, Pace NMFS/SERO

Witherell, Dave NPFMC staff

Woolcott, Craig NOAA/OLIA

Yoklavich, Mary NMFS/SWFSC
44

Appendix D – Post-Summit Activities

NOAA Fisheries and the Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum shared additional, more 

abbreviated meeting summaries with participants and the public immediately following the EFH 

Summit.

Council Coordination Committee (CCC) discussion: Representatives from NOAA Fisheries 

Office of Habitat Conservation, the Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum, and the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (on behalf of the EFH Summit Advisory Group and 

the CCC) provided key highlights from the EFH Summit discussions to the CCC at its May 25-

26, 2016 meeting in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Several CCC members that attended the 

EFH Summit praised NOAA Fisheries and the Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum

their planning and execution of the Summit and stressed the value of the information exchange 

across regions from a variety of participants. There was special praise for the obvious passion 

from many of the EFH scientists and managers that presented information at the Summit. The 

CCC unanimously agreed to continue the cross-council CCC Habitat Workgroup to discuss 

several key issues raised at the Summit, including coordination and communication on new and 

emerging coastal and marine development activities, and asked for the working group to report 

back on progress at one of the 2017 CCC meetings, which did occur at the spring 2017 meeting 

in Gloucester, MA.

Summary document: The Fisheries Leadership and Sustainability Forum also developed a brief 

summary report, available at http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/efh20/pdf/EFH_summit_summary.pdf.