Hawaii FEP - Western Pacific Fishery Council

(1996), Birkeland (1997b), Grigg 2002, and Clark and Gulko (1999). (These findings aresummarized in Table 36.) More recently, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force identified six keythreats to coral reefs: (1) land based sources of pollutions, (2) overfishing, (3) recreationaloveruse, (4) lack of awareness, (5) climate change, and (6) coral bleaching and disease (Green1997).In general, reefs closest to human population centers are more heavily used and are in worsecondition than those in remote locations (Green 1997). Nonetheless, it is difficult to generalizeabout the present condition of coral reefs in the U.S. Pacific Islands because of their broadgeographic distribution and the lack of long-term monitoring to document environmental andbiological baselines. Coral reef conditions and use patterns vary throughout the U.S. PacificIslands.A useful distinction is between coral reefs near inhabited islands of American Samoa, CNMI,Guam, and the main Hawaiian islands and coral reefs in the remote NWHI, PRIA, and northernislands of the CNMI. Reefs near the inhabited islands are heavily used for small-scale artisanal,recreational, and subsistence fisheries, and those in Hawaii, CNMI and Guam are also the focusof extensive non-consumptive marine recreation. Rather than a relatively few large-scalemechanized operations, many fishermen each deploy more limited gear. The more accessiblebanks in the MHI (e.g., Penguin Bank and Kaula Rock) are the most heavily fished offshorereefs in the Hawaii Archipelago.6.5 Non-Fishing Related Impacts That May Adversely Affect EFHOn the basis of the guidelines established by the Secretary under Section 305 (b)(1)(A) of theMSA, NMFS has developed a set of guidelines to assist councils meet the requirement todescribe adverse impacts to EFH from non-fishing activities in their FMPs or FEPs (67 FR2376). A wide range of non-fishing activities throughout the U.S. Pacific Islands contribute toEFH degradation. FEP implementation will not directly mitigate these activities. However, asalready noted, it will allow NMFS and the Council to make recommendations to any federal orstate agency about actions that may impact EFH. Not only could this be a mechanism tominimize the environmental impacts of agency action, it will help them focus their conservationand management efforts.The Council is required to identify non-fishing activities that have the potential to adverselyaffect EFH quality and, for each activity, describe its known potential adverse impacts and theEFH most likely to be adversely affected. The descriptions should explain the mechanisms orprocesses that may cause the adverse effects and how these may affect habitat function. TheCouncil considered a wide range of non-fishing activities that may threaten important propertiesof the habitat used by managed species and their prey, including dredging, dredge materialdisposal, mineral exploration, water diversion, aquaculture, wastewater discharge, oil andhazardous substance discharge, construction of fish enhancement structures, coastaldevelopment, introduction of exotic species, and agricultural practices. These activities andimpacts, along with mitigation measures, are detailed in the next section.205