Marine Resources Assessment for the Marianas Operating ... - SPREP

AUGUST 2005 FINAL REPORT
(Myers and Donaldson 2003). Lack of adequate data has made it difficult to identify and interpret other
sources of variation in the distribution and/or decline of the fisheries resources of these islands. Declining
fisheries resources is a major problem facing Guam; however, CNMI has adopted some of the strictest
fishing regulations in the Pacific banning gears such as SCUBA/hookah spear fishing, gill nets, drag nets,
and surround nets.
According to the Guam DAWR, fish populations have declined 70% over the past 15 years. Finfish
harvest dropped from 151,700 kg in 1985 to 62,689 kg in 1999 (Richmond and Davis 2002). Catch-perunit-effort
has dropped over 50% since 1985, and landings of large reef fish are rare (Richmond and
Davis 2002). Seasonal harvest of juvenile rabbitfish has also declined in recent years. Currently, there is
little data assessing the health of fish resources in the study area but it is believed that populations
increase as you travel north due to decreased fishing pressure (Starmer et al. 2002). Regulations such as
the ban of spearfishing with SCUBA and gill netting have been proposed to aid in the relief of fishing
pressure in the area (Richmond and Davis 2002).
4.1.1 Essential Fish Habitat: Distribution and Species
The WPRFMC manages major fisheries within the EEZ around Hawai’i and the territories and
possessions of the U.S. in the Pacific Ocean (WPRFMC 1998, 2001). The WPRFMC (3 to 200 NM), in
conjunction with the Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (0 to 3 NM) and the CNMI Division
of Fish and Wildlife manages the fishery resources in the study area. The WPRFMC has also proposed to
defer fisheries management from 0 to 3 NM to the CNMI DFW (WPRFMC 2001). The WPRFMC focuses
on the major fisheries in the study area that require regional management. The WPRFMC currently
oversees five major FMPs and their associated amendments for bottomfish, pelagics, crustaceans,
precious corals, and coral reef ecosystems.
The MSFCMA, as amended by the SFA, contains provisions for the identification and protection of habitat
essential to production of federally managed species. The act requires NOAA Fisheries to assist regional
fishery management councils in including EFH in their respective FMP.
EFH provisions impose procedural requirements on both councils and federal agencies. Councils must
identify adverse impacts on EFH resulting from both fish and non-fishing activities, and describe
measures to minimize or mitigate these impacts. Councils can also provide comments and make
recommendations to federal or state agencies that propose actions that may affect habitat, including EFH,
of a managed species. Agencies must then decide how they intend to minimize or mitigate the identified
adverse impacts. Fishing activities that may adversely impact EFH include but are not limited to the
following: anchor damage from vessels attempting to maintain position over productive fishing habitat,
heavy weights and line entanglement occurring during normal hook-and-line fishing operations, lost gear
from lobster fishing operations, and remotely operated vehicle tether damage to precious coral during
harvesting operations. Seven non-fishing activities have been identified that directly or indirectly affect
habitat used by management unit species and are as follows: infaunal and bottom-dwelling organisms,
turbidity plumes, biological availability of toxic substances, damage to sensitive habitat, current
patterns/water circulation modification, loss of habitat function, contaminant runoff, sediment runoff, and
shoreline stabilization projects (WPRFMC 2001).
The FMPs developed for federally managed species under the jurisdiction of these fishery management
councils should include identification and description of the EFH, description of non-fishing and fishing
threats, and suggested measures to conserve and enhance the EFH. Each of these councils is also
required in the FMPs to identify the EFH-HAPC where one or more of the following criteria are
demonstrated: (a) ecological function, (b) sensitivity to human-induced environmental degradation, (c)
development activities stressing habitat type, or (d) rarity of habitat. In addition to the EFH status, some of
these species are assigned status categories in conjunction with the ESA and various federal or
international agencies. These status categories will be discussed in the “status” section of the EFH
descriptions.
4-2