Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library

726
projects, NMFS has been forced to apply its dwindling budgets and
resources to only a small portion of its mandated
responsibilities. In the Northeast, NMFS habitat programs find
Increasingly less time for forage stocks despite their importance
to corrmerclal fisheries, less effort corttnltted to habitat
supporting species under restoration in their former ranges, and
little Interest in species of low fisheries management concern
despite their Importance to recreational fishermen or marine
ecosystems. Protected species may fare even worse.
Concerning the NMFS mandates In wetlands, commercial fisheries,
anadromous fish, and the Clean water Act, these artificial
constraints are very frustrating. NMFS opportunities to Influence
Army Corps of Engineers' decisions in their Section 10 and 404
permit revtews have been reduced by policies in both agencies, and
Northeast Region participation in other project planning like
hydropower projects has suffered from the budget ax. Despite
these concerns that various habitat components and mandates may be
neglected, thts shift does reflect budget realities and current
administration philosophies. This shift should not be interpreted
as an Intentional abrogation of legislative mandates by the
Individual habitat offices that are trying to balance budget
impacts and resource threats.
This trend is not limited to any particular Issue or species In
the Northeast, and perhaps not even to just the Northeast. One
major limiting factor Is the emphasis on species covered by
fisheries management plans prepared under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. In the Northeast, with the
preponderance of offshore rather than estuarlne-dependent
fisheries, this means more emphasis on lobster, scallops, cod, and
haddock than would be seen in the Southeast where the major
commercial fisheries are shrimp and menhaden, both estuarlnedependent
species. This trend toward emphasis on commercial
fisheries is accentuated by the NMFS and fishery council
philosophy that stocks In state waters should be managed by
interstate commissions rather than federal intervention. Another
exaaple is in the art/science of mitigation. Uncertainties
associated with efforts to recoup productivity losses Impose a
definite drain on coastal and estuarine resources. In essence,
mitigation imposes a forced loss of fishery production for at
least the months or years between project development and
completion of mitigation plans.
Conclusions
Despite these trends In the philosophies and budgets of habitat
programs, NMFS and presumably other federal agencies still
continue to emphasize fishery habitat conservation. And continued
pressure to support coastal development can be expected in an era
of expanding human populations and growing desire to live within
sight of breaking waves.
But what are the implications to the living resources and
habitats, and the programs that have evolved In response to
federal and state habitat mandates? First, the recent shift in