Amendment 4 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii Archipelago Revised Descriptions and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish of the Hawaiian Archipelago January 28, 2016 1 Responsible Agencies The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council was established by the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act (MSA) to develop management plans for U.S. fisheries operating in the offshore waters around the territories of American Samoa and Guam, the State of Hawai‘i, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA; Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, Baker Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, and Wake Island). The territories, commonwealth, state, and PRIA are collectively the western Pacific Region. Once a plan is approved by the Secretary of Commerce, it is implemented as appropriate by federal regulations that are enforced by NMFS and the U.S. Coast Guard, in cooperation with state, territorial, and commonwealth agencies. For further information contact: Kitty M. Simonds Michael D. Tosatto Executive Director Regional Administrator Western Pacific Regional Fishery Pacific Islands Regional Office Management Council National Marine Fisheries Service 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg 176 Honolulu, HI 96813 Honolulu, HI 96818 (808) 522-8220 (808) 725-5000 List of Preparers This document was prepared by (in alphabetical order): Matt Dunlap, NMFS Pacific Islands Region Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division Alan Everson, Danielle Jayewardene, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Habitat Conservation Division Jarad Makaiau, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division Mark Mitsuyasu, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council Sarah Pautzke, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office Rebecca Walker, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 2 Executive Summary This amendment details the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designated for Hawai‘i bottomfish and seamount groundfish in the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii Archipelago (FEP) and provides alternatives for its refinement, as well as refinement of bottomfish and seamount groundfish habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC). Regional fishery management councils must describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for managed fish species in federal fishery management plans under §303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). EFH are those waters and substrates necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, and grow to maturity. To the extent practicable, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required to minimize adverse fishing impacts on EFH. Federal agencies acting in waters defined as EFH or HAPC are required to consult with NMFS prior to taking actions that may adversely affect EFH or HAPC. Regional Fishery Management Councils have the authority to comment on federal or state agency actions that would adversely affect habitat of managed species. Identification of HAPC is recommended if a habitat is especially important ecologically, or if it is particularly vulnerable to degradation, to provide additional focus for conservation efforts. HAPC must be based on any one or all of the following four considerations identified in the NMFS EFH guidelines (50 CFR § 600.815(a)(8)) the importance of its ecological function, the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation, whether, and to what extent, development activities are or will be stressing the habitat, and the rarity of the habitat type. In 1999, EFH was defined for Hawai‘i bottomfish and seamount groundfish management unit species (MUS). In 2002, NMFS issued guidance that recommended EFH provisions be reviewed, revised, and updated at least once every five years. Due to new relevant data from research programs and scientific investigations, EFH and HAPC could be refined further for Hawai‘i BMUS. Under the changes proposed in Amendment 4, the overall EFH designation for Hawaii bottomfish would remain the same, i.e., waters 0-400 m deep within the EEZ. The Council’s recommendations are a refinement of EFH with respect to which life stages and species assemblages are associated with a particular EFH designation. The amendment proposes to revise descriptions of habitat importance for individual species, which reflects updated information about depth range and life history for each life stage of each bottomfish. The amendment proposes to designate EFH for three bottomfish complexes (shallow, intermediate, and deep) instead of the current two (shallow and deep). The amendment proposes replacing the previous life stage terms of larvae, juvenile, and adults with the terms post-hatch pelagic, post- settlement, and sub-adult/adult, respectively. The amendment uses the term “pelagic” to refer to the water column that excludes bottom habitat, “benthopelagic” for the water column and benthic habitat, and “benthic” for the bottom habitat and the immediately adjacent waters in which a bottom-dwelling fish might live. Revised HAPC designations are for seven distinct sites in the main Hawaiian Islands, refining the current HAPC designation of all escarpments and slopes between 40-280 m and three known areas of juvenile Pristipomoides filamentosus habitat. 3 Under the changes proposed in Amendment 4, the overall EFH designation for Hawaii seamount groundfish would be changed from a box bound by 29°–35°N and 171° E -179° W to an area that overlaps the Hancock Seamounts Ecosystem Management area, or the waters 0-600 m deep within the EEZ north of 28° N and west of 180° W. The proposed revisions to EFH for seamount groundfish involve distinctions over depth ranges at various life stages. The Council is proposing to designate the same area described for EFH above as HAPC for seamount groundfish. Previously there were no HAPC designated for seamount groundfish in the Hawaiian archipelago. 4 Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 9 1.1 Summary of the Hawai‘i Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan...... 14 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AMENDMENT .......................................... 15 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 15 3.1 Bottomfish Essential Fish Habitat Designation Alternatives .......... 15 3.1.1 Alternative 1: Maintain existing EFH designation (No Action) ...... 15 3.1.2 Alternative 2 (preferred): Bottomfish EFH designation with three species assemblages and individual species descriptions ................ 18 3.1.2.1 EFH Designations ............................................................................ 18 3.1.3 Alternative 3: Bottomfish EFH designation with three species assemblages and individual species descriptions for Deep 7 species only .................................................................................................. 26 3.1.4 Alternative 4: Bottomfish EFH designation with three species assemblages and individual species descriptions, and add S. rivoliana to the BMUS .................................................................... 27 3.2 Seamount Groundfish EFH .............................................................. 27 3.2.1 Alternative 1: Maintain existing seamount groundfish EFH designation (No Action)................................................................... 27 3.2.2 Alternative 2 (preferred): Designate seamount groundfish EFH by life stage in one species assemblage ................................................ 28 3.2.3 Alternative 3: Designate seamount groundfish EFH by life stage for individual species throughout the archipelago ................................. 29 3.2.3.1 EFH Designations ............................................................................ 30 3.2.4 Alternative 4: Designate seamount groundfish EFH by life history stage in one species assemblage, and add area-specific boundary designations for groundfish at Cross Seamount .............................. 32 3.3 Bottomfish HAPC Designations ...................................................... 33 3.3.1 Alternative 1: Maintain existing bottomfish HAPC designations (No Action) ............................................................................................. 34 3.3.2 Alternative 2: Establish sixteen HAPC based on HAPC review recommendations ............................................................................. 34 3.3.3 Alternative 3 (preferred): Establish seven HAPC based on WPSAR Working Group recommendations................................................... 38 3.4 Seamount Groundfish HAPC Designation ...................................... 41 3.4.1 Alternative 1: Maintain current HAPC designations for seamount groundfish (No Action) .................................................................... 41 5 3.4.2 Alternative 2 (preferred): WPSAR recommendations for seamount groundfish HAPC designation, excluding Cross Seamount ............ 41 3.4.3 Alternative 3: WPSAR recommendations for seamount groundfish HAPC designation ........................................................................... 42 4.0 PREY SPECIES .................................................................................. 42 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF ACTIVITIES THAT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT EFH 43 5.1 Federal