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

AUGUST 2005 FINAL REPORT
includes the associated biological communities that make these areas suitable fish habitats (50 CFR
600.10). Habitats used at any time during a species’ life cycle (i.e., during at least one of its life
stages) must be accounted for when describing and identifying EFH (NMFS 2002).
Authority to implement the SFA is given to the Secretary of Commerce through the NMFS. The SFA
requires that the EFH be identified and described for each federally managed species. The
identification must include descriptive information on the geographic range of the EFH for all life
stages, along with maps of the EFH for life stages over appropriate time and space scales. Habitat
requirements must also be identified, described, and mapped for all life stages of each species. The
NMFS and regional FMCs determine the species distributions by life stage and characterize
associated habitats, including HAPC. The SFA requires federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on
activities that may adversely affect EFH. For actions that affect a threatened or endangered species,
its critical habitat, and its EFH, federal agencies must initiate both ESA and EFH consultations.
In 2002, the EFH Final Rule was authorized, which simplified EFH regulations (NMFS 2002).
Significant changes delineated in the EFH Final Rule are: (1) clearer standards for identifying and
describing EFH, including the inclusion of the geographic boundaries and a map of the EFH, as well
as guidance for the FMCs to distinguish EFH from other habitats; (2) more guidance for the FMCs on
evaluating the impact of fishing activities on EFH and clearer standards for deciding when FMCs
should act to minimize the adverse impacts; and (3) clarification and reinforcement of the EFH
consultation procedures (NMFS 2002). The process by which federal agencies can integrate
MSFCMA EFH consultations with ESA Section 7 consultations is described in NMFS (2002).
1.3.2 Executive Orders
EO 12114 on Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (32 CFR 187) was passed
in 1979 to further environmental objectives consistent with U.S. foreign and national security policies
by extending the principles of the NEPA to the international stage. Under EO 12114, federal agencies
that engage in major actions that significantly affect a non-U.S. environment must prepare an EA of
the action’s effects on that environment. This is similar to an environmental impact statement (EIS) or
EA developed under the NEPA for environments in the U.S. Certain actions, such as intelligence
activities, disaster and emergency relief actions, and actions that occur in the course of an armed
conflict, are exempt from this order. Such exemptions do not apply to major federal actions that
significantly affect an environment that is not within any nation’s jurisdiction, unless permitted by law.
The purpose of the order is to force federal agencies to consider the effects their actions have on
international environments.
EO 12962 on Recreational Fisheries (60 Federal Register [FR] 30769) was enacted in 1995 to
ensure that federal agencies strive to improve the “quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and
distribution of U.S. aquatic resources” so that recreational fishing opportunities nationwide can
increase. The overarching goal of this order is to promote the conservation, restoration, and
enhancement of aquatic systems and fish populations by increasing fishing access, education and
outreach, and multi-agency partnerships. The National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council
(NRFCC), co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, is charged with overseeing
federal actions and programs that are mandated by this order. The specific duties of the NRFCC
include: (1) ensuring that the social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems, which support
recreational fisheries, are fully considered by federal agencies; (2) reducing duplicative and costinefficient
efforts among federal agencies; and (3) disseminating the latest information and
technologies to assist in the conservation and management of recreational fisheries. In June 1996,
the NRFCC developed a comprehensive Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan
(RFRCP) specifying what member agencies would do to achieve the order’s goals (NMFS 1999). In
addition to defining federal agency actions, the plan also ensures agency accountability and provides
a comprehensive mechanism to evaluate achievements. A major outcome of the RFRCP has been
the increased utilization of artificial reefs to better manage recreational fishing stocks in U.S. waters
(USFWS 2003c).
1-9