Essential Fish Habitat and Closed Areas in Federal Waters 

of the North Pacific

Presented at the 1998 William R. and Lenore Mote International Symposium

November 4-6, 1998

Mote Marine Laboratory

Sarasota, Florida

by 

Jane DiCosimo

North Pacific Fishery Management Council

605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Jane.DiCosimo@noaa.gov

(907) 271-2809

FAX (907) 271-2817

Submitted to Bulletin of Marine Science

February 1999
Abstract

Along with other conventional methods of managing fisheries that have been largely successful in the North

Pacific, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has adopted over a dozen closed areas in the Bering

Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska as of 1997. In May 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service

implemented essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act and developed draft recommendations for the identification of EFH for all fishery

management plans (FMPs). In June 1998, the Council amended its five FMPs to identify EFH and other

actions to encourage habitat conservation and enhancement. Also in 1998, the Council closed the Cape

Edgecumbe pinnacles near Sitka, Alaska to all federal fishing and anchoring. The 3.1 nm2

 area comprises

two volcanic necks that support extremely high biodiversity and dense concentrations of marine fauna. For

1999 and beyond, the Council is requesting recommendations for additional habitat areas of particular

concern (HAPC) from its scientific advisors and the public. While these closures and HAPCs may not meet

precise definitions of marine reserves, they provide similar protection for many diverse marine species.

Keywords: closed areas; essential fish habitat; fisheries management; habitat; habitat area of particular

concern; marine reserves; marine refugia
3

Introduction

Since its establishment in 1976, a primary management goal of the North Pacific Fishery Management

Council has been to conserve fishery resources, optimize resource utilization, maintain habitat, and consider

ecosystem interactions. This approach was institutionalized in the Council’s comprehensive goals that were

adopted in 1984. Then in 1988, the Council adopted a comprehensive habitat policy (Figure 1). Its

objectives are to maintain the current quantity and productive capacity of habitats and restore and rehabilitate

any habitats previously degraded. 

Over the past 23 years, the Council has developed over a dozen seasonal and year-round closed areas to all

fishing gear and specific to trawl gear in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA).

These are summarized in Witherell and Pautzke (1997), along with a history of closed areas adopted since

1935. While these closed areas may not meet a strict definition of marine reserves, they do protect key

habitats and species and have contributed to the precautionary approach the Council has undertaken to

manage its fisheries. These year-round closed areas to trawling comprise approximately 60,000 nm2

 of the

BSAI and GOA.

These closed areas represent just one element of the overall precautionary approach the Council has taken

in managing North Pacific stocks. More conventional elements include license limitation, conservative

quotas, gear restrictions, seasonal and area allocations, observer coverage, and comprehensive catch

reporting. This approach has proven successful in the long-term. Of 230 stocks under the Council’s

management jurisdiction, none were identified as overfished or approaching overfishing as of 1998 (NMFS,

1998a). 

More holistic, ecosystem-based management is becoming the new standard for fisheries management.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) scientists have begun to incorporate ecosystem approaches to

modeling the abundance of the GOA walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) stock assessment by

incorporating climatological data and predation interactions (Hollowed et al., 1997; 1998) and are examining

the applicability of potential marine reserves and experiments on no-take and limited take zones and timearea closures (NMFS 1998b). Marine reserves are thought to be most beneficial to species that have been

overfished, reach great sizes or ages, and have limited movements or sedentary behavior. They provide one

of the few management tools for the implementation of several provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) which cannot be addressed by traditional management tools,

including protection of essential fish habitat (EFH), incorporation of ecosystem-based versus single speciesbased fisheries management practices and the adoption of a precautionary approach to management

(Bohnsack, 1996; Clark, 1996; Yoklavich, 1998). Reserves may also benefit well-managed stocks by further

protecting spawning stocks, juveniles, and critical habitat.

Essential Fish Habitat

Though the Council has had an official habitat policy since 1988, the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) of

1996 amended the MSFCMA and added momentum to protecting habitat by requiring the Councils and

NMFS to identify and describe EFH and adverse impacts on EFH in all fishery management plans (FMPs),

and take action to conserve and enhance EFH. The Council responded in June 1998 by adopting FMP

amendments to identify EFH in its BSAI groundfish, GOA groundfish, BSAI crab, scallop and salmon FMPs.

Efforts are now underway to identify habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) for major groundfish and

shellfish stocks.
4

Following national guidelines developed by NMFS, the Council has described EFH as those waters and

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (NPFMC, 1998). For the

purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: “waters” includes aquatic areas and their associated physical,

chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include areas historically used by fish

where appropriate; “substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and

associated biological communities; “necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery

and a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a species’ full life

cycle.

Specifically, the SFA required the Councils to amend their FMPs by October 1998 to:

1. identify and describe EFH for species managed under a FMP;

2. describe adverse impacts to that habitat from fishing activities;

3. describe adverse impacts to that habitat from non-fishing activities; and

4. recommend conservation and enhancement measures necessary to help minimize impacts, protect, and

restore that habitat. 

The SFA also recommended that FMPs identify HAPCs within EFH. In determining whether a type or area

of EFH is an HAPC, one or more of the following criteria must be met:

1. the importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat;

2. the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation;

3. whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and/or

4. the rarity of the habitat type.

The SFA further recommended that the Council strive to obtain data sufficient to describe habitat at the

highest level of detail as described below. Due to the paucity of data for many species, the Council added

Level 0 as a subset of Level 1 to address species for which no life history information is available. Essential

fish habitat information levels for BSAI and GOA groundfish, BSAI crab, scallops and salmon in the North

Pacific are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. 

Level 0: No systematic sampling has been conducted for this species and life stage; may have been caught

opportunistically in small numbers during other research.

Level 1: Presence/absence distribution data are available for some or all portions of the geographic range

of the species. At this level, only presence/absence data are available to describe the distribution

of a species (or life history stage) in relation to potential habitats. Care should be taken to ensure

that all potential habitats have been sampled adequately. In the event that distribution data are

available for only portions of the geographic area occupied by a particular life history stage of

a species, EFH can be inferred on the basis of distributions among habitats where the species has

been found and on information about its habitat requirements and behavior. 

Level 2: Habitat-related densities of the species are available. At this level, quantitative data (i.e., density

or relative abundance) are available for the habitats occupied by a species or life history stage.

Because the efficiency of sampling methods is often affected by habitat characteristics, strict

quality assurance criteria should be used to ensure that density estimates are comparable among

methods and habitats. Density data should reflect habitat utilization, and the degree that a habitat

is utilized is assumed to be indicative of habitat value. When assessing habitat value on the basis
5

of fish densities in this manner, temporal changes in habitat availability and utilization should be

considered. 

Level 3: Growth, reproduction, or survival rates within habitats are available. At this level, data are

available on habitat-related growth, reproduction, and/or survival by life history stage. The

habitats contributing the most to productivity should be those that support the highest growth,

reproduction, and survival of the species (or life history stage). 

Level 4: Production rates by habitat are available. At this level, data are available that directly relate the

production rates of a species or life history stage to habitat type, quantity, quality, and location.

Essential habitats are those necessary to maintain fish production consistent with a sustainable

fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem.

The Council adopted the recommendations of its groundfish technical team, which used level 2 general

distribution or known concentrations to define EFH for species’ life stage. A general distribution of a

species’ life stage is a subset of its current and historic range, and is the geographic area containing most

(approximately 95%) of the individuals across all seasons. EFH designation solely on known concentrations

would not ensure that adequate areas were protected. Specific reasons supporting this conclusion were:

1. Areas of known concentrations based on current information do not adequately address

unpredictable annual differences in spatial distributions of a life stage, nor changes due to longterm shifts in oceanographic regimes. Annual differences in distribution of high concentrations

of adults, particularly for pelagic or semi-demersal species (e.g., pollock, Pacific cod (Gadus

macrocephalus)) occur and are unpredictable. Within the last 20 years, from which most data

have been obtained, long-term changes in concentrations have been observed in Alaska

groundfish. The spawning distribution of GOA pollock has changed dramatically since the

1970s. Relative distribution of the sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) stock between the BS, AI,

and GOA has cycled since the late 1970s. 

2. All habitats occupied by a species contribute to production at some level. Although contributions

from individual locations may be small, collectively they can account for a significant part of

total production.

3. A stock’s long-term productivity is based on both high and low levels of abundance and the

entire general distribution may be required during times of high abundance.

4. Descriptions of known concentrations are primarily based on seasonal survey information, while

general distribution is based on the best available scientific information, as well as fishery and

local knowledge of a species life stage.

5. Distinctions between known concentrations and general distribution of a species’ life stage have

no scientific basis.

6. Observed concentrations or densities do not necessarily reflect all habitat essential to maintain

healthy stocks within the ecosystem.

The NMFS guidelines advised the Council to use risk-averse and ecosystem approaches, and the best

scientific information available suggests that general distribution should be used to designate EFH necessary
6

to maintain healthy stocks and ecosystems and sustain productive fisheries. While areas of known

concentration are identified for some species’ life stages, the Council defined EFH as the general distribution

for all groundfish species life stages in the BSAI and GOA. Habitats occupied by the species’ life stages are

located within each general distribution. Rare observations that extend a species range during anomalous

environmental conditions would not be considered part of its general distribution.

For life stages with information levels 1 and 2, general distributions were determined geographically as the

area encompassing at least 95 percent of positive survey samples in Fritz et al. (1998) and supplemented as

necessary by distribution information available in NOAA (1987; 1990), Wolotira et al. (1993), and Allen and

Smith (1988) to allow for survey coverage limitations, and by any relevant knowledge of life history or

habitat associations. Maps were prepared illustrating general distributions for species life stages for which

level 1 or 2 information is available. For life stages with level 0 information, general distributions were

inferred from where a species has been observed and any relevant knowledge of its life history and habitat

associations. No maps for life stages with level 0 information were prepared.

Areas of known concentrations within a general distribution were defined by the approximate area

encompassing survey or fishery hauls with density (catch per unit effort) observations in the upper 66th

percentile of positive observations of a species’ life stage in Fritz et al. (1998), and supplemented as

necessary by distribution information available in NOAA (1987;1990), Wolotira et al. (1993), and Allen and

Smith (1988) to allow for survey coverage limitations, and by any relevant knowledge of life history or

habitat associations. Known concentrations were defined and mapped only for species life stages for which

level 2 knowledge is available (only for the adult stages of certain groundfish).

If a species is overfished, and habitat loss or degradation may be contributing to the species being

overfished, all habitats currently used by the species would be considered essential. In addition, certain

historic habitats necessary for rebuilding the fishery and for which restoration is technologically and

economically feasible should be included. Once the fishery is no longer considered overfished, the EFH

identification should be reviewed, and the FMP amended, if appropriate. EFH will always be greater than

or equal to aquatic areas that have been identified as "critical habitat" for any managed species listed as

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Where a stock of a species is considered to

be healthy, EFH should be a subset of all existing habitat for the species. 

Cape Edgecumbe Pinnacles Closure

Since 1989, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has conducted in-situ assessments of

groundfish in the GOA using a manned submersible to collect information on habitat-specific density of

demersal shelf rockfishes (Sebastes sp.) and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) (O'Connell, 1993; O'Connell and

Carlile 1993, O'Connell et al. 1998). Over 300 dives have been made in Southeast Alaska. The area off Cape

Edgecumbe is dominated by two large volcanic pinnacles with steep walls, complex rockfish habitat, and a

diversity and density of fishes not seen in surrounding areas (Figure 2) (O'Connell et al. 1998). The

pinnacles, which occur in federal waters, provide a unique habitat of extremely complex vertical relief

including columnar basalts and large boulder fields. The top of the pinnacles are blanketed with Metridium

and other fragile invertebrate communities that provide cover for young fishes. The area attracts and shelters

an extremely high density of juvenile rockfishes, particularly in late spring and early summer. Lingcod

inhabit the pinnacles seasonally for spawning, nest-guarding, and post-nesting feeding. It is also an important

fishing ground for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and salmon (Onchorhynchus sp.) (O'Connell et

al. 1998) . 
7

As described by O’Connell et al. (1998), fisheries for yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) by bottom longliners

and lingcod by trollers using dinglebar gear began in the late 1980s. In 1991, the State of Alaska, which has

jurisdiction for managing demersal shelf rockfishes, salmon, and lingcod in both state and federal waters,

closed all harvest of lingcod from December 1 through April 30 in the waters from Cape Edgecumbe to

Biorka Island, including the pinnacles (Figure 3). In 1997 and 1998, the State prohibited retention of all

groundfish by commercial fisheries in a 3.1 nm2

 area around the pinnacles. Concurrently, the sport charter

fleet rapidly expanded in Sitka and many of these vessels began targeting the pinnacles.

In 1998, the State permanently closed the pinnacles to all bottomfishing and anchoring to prevent localized

overfishing, protect nursery habitat provided by rock outcrop and invertebrate epifauna, and to create a

bottom refuge. This action affected all commercial, sport, charter, bycatch and subsistence users. The

Council took similar action to close the pinnacles in federal waters to all fishing for groundfish, halibut, and

scallops. The State is scheduled to consider closing the pinnacles to all other state-managed species, such

as salmon, crab, herring, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, etc., in 2000. 

While the Cape Edgecumbe pinnacles closed area may not be designated a marine reserve, it does provide

substantial protection of a vital ecosystem within an area surrounded by heavy fishing pressure. The lava

fields and cobble flats adjacent to the pinnacles remain open to substantial halibut and yelloweye rockfish

fisheries (O’Connell et al. 1998). Upon approval of the amendment to close the pinnacles in federal waters

to all fishing and anchoring by the Secretary of Commerce and proposed action by the State to close the

pinnacles to all fishing in State waters, the pinnacles will augment other no-take areas in the North Pacific,

heretofore limited to 3-mile buffer zones around all Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) rookeries in the

BSAI and GOA since 1990. Despite its small size, the pinnacles encompass a wide range of depths and rock

habitats (O’Connell et al. 1998). It is similar to those implemented in other areas of the U.S. (Bohnsack,

1996). More than 400 marine reserves occur in more than 65 countries and territories; more than 150 are less

than 1 km2

 in size (Spalding, pers. comm.). 

Evaluating the success of closed areas as criteria for HAPC status

The ADF&G will be able to monitor changes in diversity, distribution, and abundance of organisms because

baseline information in the pinnacles has been collected since July 1997, when several permanent transect

sites were marked. The Council will reevaluate the pinnacle area for consideration as a HAPC based on this

information. Pinnacles and seamounts are among those habitat types identified as eligible for HAPC status.

Other existing closed areas may be evaluated for HAPC status. Between 1995 and 1996, the Council adopted

three king crab closures in Bristol Bay, Alaska to protect crab stocks (Figure 4). These three adjacent areas,

combined, comprise about 30,000 nm2

, or approximately 25% of the continental shelf where commercial

quantities of groundfish can be taken with bottom trawl gear (Fritz et al., 1998). Their area exceeds the

theoretical minimum of 20% of available habitat, the lower limit of an effective marine reserve suggested

by Lauck et al. (1998). The Pribilof Islands conservation area was closed to all trawling and dredging yearround to protect juvenile blue king crab (Paralithodes platypus) habitat (primarily shell hash). The red king

crab savings area established a year-round non-pelagic (bottom) trawl and dredge closure area in an area of

known high densities of adult red king crab (P. camtshaticus). The nearshore waters of Bristol Bay were

closed year-round to trawling to protect juvenile red king crab and critical rearing habitat, although a small

subarea on its northern boundary opens from April 1 to June 15 to allow a yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera)

trawl fishery. A limited longline fishery for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and Pacific cod and

pot fisheries for cod and red king crab occur within all three of these trawl closed areas. 
8

The Bristol Bay closures reduced crab bycatch and protected all red king crab life-history stages and habitat

from potential degradation due to trawling (Ackley and Witherell, in press). A large 1990 year-class has

grown to spawning size and has recruited to the fishery. The spawning stock has increased to a level above

the rebuilding threshold, allowing the exploitation rate to be increased to 15% (Zheng et al., 1998). The

directed crab fishery opened on November 1, 1998 with a preseason guideline harvest level of 7,438 mt,

which was double the 1997 catch. These closures offered additional protection to Tanner crabs

(Chionoecetes bairdi), marine mammals, migrating and nesting sea birds, salmon (Onchorhynchus sp.), and

Pacific herring (Clupea harengus) (Ackley and Witherell, in press).

Conclusions

The SFA mandate to identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish habitat is regarded as an important tool

for sustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystems. This mandate includes the role of ecosystem management

and identifies EFH as the waters and substrate required by fish for reproduction, feeding, and growth. Closed

areas are an additional tool in precautionary management of marine resources, and have long been used in

North Pacific fisheries. The success of the Bristol Bay closed areas in the recovery of the red king crab stock

and additional protection to other marine stocks lends support for their use. Public support for the adoption

of the Cape Edgecumbe pinnacles will likely lead to the identification and adoption of additional closures

necessary to protect other critical marine habitat. These closed areas rely heavily on voluntary compliance

and public support for their success. Cooperation between state and federal management and research

agencies and the general public is necessary for the identification, creation, enforcement, and monitoring of

closed areas to optimize benefits that will likely accrue to the resource and its users. While they are not

designated as marine reserves per se, these closed areas provide similar protection for habitat and marine

resources, and are a critical element of sustainable fisheries management in North Pacific waters.
9

*Literature Cited

Ackley, D. and D. Witherell. In press. Development of a marine habitat protection area in Bristol Bay, Alaska.

Ecosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report, University of

Alaska Fairbanks.

Allen, M. J., and G. B. Smith. 1988. Atlas and zoogeography of common fishes in the Bering Sea and northeastern

Pacific. U.S. Dep. Commerc., NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS 66, 151 p.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1996. Marine reserves, zoning, and the future of fishery management. Fisheries 21(9):14-16.

Clark, C.W. 1996. Marine reserves and the precautionary management of fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 69(2):369-370.

Fritz, L. W., A. Greig, and R. Reuter. 1998. Catch-per-unit-effort, length, and depth distributions of major groundfish

and bycatch species in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska regions based on groundfish fishery

observer data. U.S. Dep. Commerc., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-88. 179 p.

Hollowed, A.B., E.B. Brown, J. Ianelli, P. Livingston, B. Megrey, and C. Wilson. 1997. Walleye pollock in Stock

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report for the Groundfish Resources of the Gulf of Alaska, November 1997.

pp. 31-119. Available from North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 306,

Anchorage, Alaska 99501. 

Hollowed, A.B., E.B. Brown, J. Ianelli, P. Livingston, B. Megrey, and C. Wilson. 1998. Walleye pollock in Stock

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report for the Groundfish Resources of the Gulf of Alaska, November 1998.

pp. 29-92. Available from North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 306,

Anchorage, Alaska 99501. 

Lauck, T., C.C. Clark, M. Mangel, and G.R. Munro. 1998. Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheries

management through marine reserves. Ecol. Applic. Spec. Iss. (February 1998) S72-78.

NMFS. 1998a. Status of the fisheries of the United States. Report to Congress, October 1998. 88 p. Available from

NOAA/NMFS, 1325 East-West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD.

_____. 1998b. Strategic plan for fisheries research. February 1998. Available from NOAA/NMFS, 1325 East-West

Hwy, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA. 1987. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. Coastal and ocean zones, Strategic assessment: Data atlas. U.S.

Dep. Commerc., NOAA, NOS.

_____. 1990. West coast of North America. Coastal and ocean zones, Strategic assessment: Data atlas. U.S. Dep.

Commerc., NOAA, NOS.

NPFMC. 1998. Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review for the groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska (Amendments 55/55) . NPFMC, 605 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 306,

Anchorage, Alaska 99501.

O’Connell, V.M. 1993. Submersible observations on lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus, nesting below 30 m off Sitka,

Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev. 55(1):19-24.

O’Connell, V.M. and D.C. Carlile. 1993. Habitat specific density of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) in the

eastern Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 91:304-309.
10

O’Connell, V.M., W. Wakefield, and H. Gary Greene. 1998. The use of a no-take marine reserve in the eastern Gulf

of Alaska to protect essential fish habitat. In: Yoklavich, M. (ed.). Marine harvest refugia for West Coast rockfish:

A workshop. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-255. pp 125-132. Available from NOAA/NMFS,

SWFSC, 1352 Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097.

Yoklavich, M. 1998. Marine harvest refugia for West Coast rockfish: A workshop. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-255. 159 p. Available from NOAA/NMFS, SWFSC, 1352 Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific Grove,

CA 93950-2097.

Witherell, D. and C. Pautzke. 1997. A brief history of bycatch management measures for eastern Bering Sea groundfish

fisheries. Mar. Fis. Rev. 59(4):15-22.

Wolotira, R. J., Jr., T. M. Sample, S. F. Noel, and C. R. Iten. 1993. Geographic and bathymetric distributions for many

commercially important fishes and shellfishes off the west coast of North America, based on research survey and

commercial catch data, 1912-1984. U.S. Dep. Commerc., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-6, 184 p.

Zheng, J., G.H. Kruse, and M.C. Murphy. 1998. Status of King crab stocks in the Eastern Bering Sea in 1998. Regional

Information Report No. 5J98-06. ADF&G, Div. Comm. Fish., P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526. 18

p.
11

Table 1. Levels of essential fish habitat information currently available for BSAI groundfish, by

life history stage. Juveniles were subdivided into early and late juvenile stages based on survey

selectivity curves.

BSAI GOA

Species

Eggs/Larvae/ 

Early

Juveniles 2

Late

Juveniles Adults

Eggs/Larvae/ 

Early

Juveniles 2

Late

Juveniles Adults

Pollock

Pacific cod

Flatfish

Sablefish

Rockfish

Atka mackerel

Other species

Forage fish 1

1

0

0

0

-/0/0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

2

0-1

0

1

0

0

0

-/0/0

0

0

0

1

1

0-1

1

0-1

0

0

0

2

2

1-2

2

1

1

0-1

0

1 Other forage fish includes all members of the lanternfish, deep sea smelt, sand lance, sandfish, gunnel,

shanny, krill, bristlemouth families.

2 Indicates a species that has internal fertilization and bears live young.
12

Table 2. Levels of essential fish habitat information currently available for BSAI

king and Tanner crab by life history stage summarized across stocks. Juveniles were

subdivided into early and late juvenile stages based on survey selectivity curves.

Species Eggs

Early 

Larvae

Late

Juveniles 1 Juveniles 2 Adults

Red King Crab 1-2 0-2 0-1 0-2 1-2

Blue King Crab 0-2 0-1 0-2 0-2 1-2

Golden King Crab 0-2 0 0 0-2 0-2

Scarlet King Crab 0 0 0 0 1

Tanner Crab (C. bairdi) 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-2 1-2

Snow Crab (C. opilio) 21 1 2 2

Grooved Crab (C. tanneri)00 0 0 1

Triangle Crab. (C. angulatus)1 0 0 0 1

1

 Early juvenile crab are defined as settled crab up through age 2.

2

 Late juvenile crab are defined as age 2 through earliest age of functional maturity.
13

List of Figures

Figure 1. NPFMC Habitat Policy Statement of 1988.

Figure 2. Cape Edgecumbe pinnacle area closure.

Figure 3. Bathymetry of pinnacles area (10 X vertical exaggeration).

Figure 4. Location of trawl closure areas to protect red and blue king crab habitats.
14

The Council shall assume an aggressive role in the protection and enhancement of habitats important

to marine and anadromous fishery resources. It shall actively enter Federal decision-making

processes where proposed actions may otherwise compromise the productivity of fishery resources

of concern to the Council. Recognizing that all species are dependent on the quantity and quality

of their essential habitats, it is the policy of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to:

Conserve, restore, and maintain habitats upon which commercial, recreational and subsistence

marine fisheries depend, to increase their extent and to improve their productive capacity for the

benefit of present and future generations. (For purposes of this policy, habitat is defined to include

all those things physical, chemical, and biological that are necessary to the productivity of the

species being managed.)

This policy shall be supported by three policy objectives which are to:

(1) Maintain the current quantity and productive capacity of habitats supporting important

commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries, including their food base. (This objective

will be implemented using a guiding principle of NO NET HABITAT LOSS caused by

human activities.)

(2) Restore and rehabilitate the productive capacity of habitats which have already been

degraded by human activities.

(3) Maintain productive natural habitats where increased fishery productivity will benefit society.

Figure 1. NPFMC Habitat Policy Statement of 1988
15

Figure 2. Cape Edgecumbe pinnacle area closure.
16

Figure 3. Bathymetry of pinnacles area (10 X vertical exaggeration).
17

Figure 4. Location of trawl closure areas to protect red and blue king crab habitats.