Hawaii FEP - Western Pacific Fishery Council

With higher quality data, those habitats most utilized by a species could be identified, allowing amore precise designation of EFH. Habitats of lesser value to a species may also be essential,depending on the health of the fish population and the ecosystem. For example, if a species isoverfished, and habitat loss or degradation is thought to contribute to its overfished condition, allhabitats currently used by the species may be essential.The EFH provisions are especially important because of the procedural requirements theyimpose on both Councils and federal agencies. First, for each FMP, Councils must identifyadverse impacts to EFH resulting from both fishing and non-fishing activities, and describemeasures to minimize these impacts. Second, the provisions allow Councils to provide commentsand make recommendations to federal or state agencies that propose actions which may affecthabitat, including EFH, of a managed species. In 2002, NMFS revised the guidelines byproviding additional clarifications and guidance to ease implementation of the EFH provision byCouncils.Based on the best available information on habitats in waters of the Hawaii Archipelago and theexisting fisheries, the Council has determined that the fisheries operating in the HawaiiArchipelago are not expected to have adverse impacts on EFH or HAPC for managed species.Continued and future operations of fisheries under the Hawaii Archipelago FEP are not likely tolead to substantial physical, chemical, or biological alterations to the habitat, or result in loss of,or injury to, these species or their prey.6.2 EFH DesignationsThe following EFH designations were developed by the Council and approved by the Secretaryof Commerce. EFH designations for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustaceans, andPrecious Corals were approved by the Secretary on February 3, 1999 (64 FR 19068). EFHdesignations for Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS were approved by the Secretary on June 14, 2002(69 FR 8336).In describing and identifying EFH for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustacean,Precious Coral, Coral Reef Ecosystem, and Pelagic MUS, four alternatives were considered: (1)designate EFH based on the best available scientific information (preferred alternative), (2)designate all waters EFH, (3) designate a minimal area as EFH, and (4) no action. Ultimately, theCouncil selected Alternative 1 designate EFH based on observed habitat utilization patterns inlocalized areas as the preferred alternative.This alternative was preferred by the Council for three reasons. First, it adhered to the intent ofthe MSA provisions and to the guidelines that have been set out through regulations andexpanded on by NMFS because the best available scientific data were used to make carefullyconsidered designations. Second, it resulted in more precise designations of EFH at the speciescomplex level than would be the case if Alternative 2 were chosen. At the same time, it did notrun the risk of being arbitrary and capricious as would be the case if Alternative 3 were chosen.Finally, it recognized that EFH designation is an ongoing process and set out a procedure for175