DRAFT DOCUMENT --- DRAFT DOCUMENT --- DRAFT DOCUMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/NOAA NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR MAGNUSON ACT PROVISIONS; ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) [62 FR pages 19723-19732] 23 APRIL 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : 4
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED: 5
1.1 Purpose: 5
1.2 Need: 52.0 BACKGROUND: 6
2.1 Magnuson-Stevens Act : 6
2.2 Rule Development: 7
2.3 Definitions: 73.0 ALTERNATIVES: 8
3.1 No Action Alternative: 9
3.2 Preferred Alternative (Proposed Regulations): 9
3.3 Alternative Regulatory Implementation and Consequences: 11
3.3.1 Alternative: Allow EFH designation for non-managed fish species: 11
3.3.2 Alternative: "Necessary" Habitat: 124.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 12
4.1 Environment Affected Directly : 12
4.1.1 Fish Habitat : 13
4.1.2 Seagrass Beds: 14
4.1.3 Riverine Fish habitat: 14
4.2 Environment Affected Indirectly: 15
4.2.1 Commercial Fishing: 15
4.2.2 Recreational Fishing: 15
4.3. Consultation and Commenting Process: 165.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 17
5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on Fish Habitat: 17
5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Fish Populations: 18
5.3 Direct and Indirect Consequences on Fisheries: 19
5.4 Unavoidable Direct and Indirect Adverse Environmental Impacts: 20
5.5 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity: 20
5.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources : 20
5.7 Direct and Indirect Effects on Consultation and Commenting Process: 20
5.8 Summary of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative: 22
5.9 Consequence of the No Action Alternative: 22
5.10 Consequences of Alternative Regulatory Implementation: 226.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHERS: 22
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS: 23
8.0 LITERATURE CITED: 24
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT: 25
APPENDICES: 26
A. Applicable Environmental Laws: 27
B. Executive Orders: 29
C. Proposed Rule Request for Comments: 30
D. List of Fishery Management Plans: 55
E. Map of Existing FMPs: 59EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for NMFS's rule containing guidelines and procedures to implement the essential fish habitat (EFH) requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The site specific implementation activities will be fully addressed in future NEPA documents as the operational details become available.The purpose of the rule is to assist Fishery Management Councils (Councils) in fulfilling the requirements set forth by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to amend their FMPs to describe and identify EFH, minimize adverse effects (including those caused by fishing) on EFH, and identify other actions to conserve and enhance EFH. The proposed regulation contains guidelines for the description and identification of EFH, including adverse impacts on EFH, and consideration of actions to conserve and enhance EFH. The proposed regulation also establishes a process for: 1.) coordination and consultation with Federal and state agencies on activities that may adversely affect EFH; 2.) the development of recommendations by NMFS to those agencies; and 3.) the action agency's response to NMFS.
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed regulation is to provide guidance to the Fishery Management Councils (Councils) in the description and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH), including adverse impacts, in fishery management plans (FMPs), and in considering actions to conserve and enhance EFH. In addition the proposed regulation address the need for a national habitat program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the United States to ensure conservation and to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the proposed regulation is to provide guidance to the Councils in implementing the requirements of sections 303 and 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Pub. L. 104 - 267, in the description and identification of EFH, including adverse impacts, in FMPs, and in considering actions to conserve and enhance EFH. In addition, this regulation will provide guidance on how the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will implement its requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to develop and provide information and recommendations to the Councils to assist in the identification of EFH in FMPs, adverse impacts to EFH (including adverse impacts from fishing), and actions to conserve and enhance EFH. The regulation also establishes procedures to implement the consultation requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and NMFS to recommend conservation and enhancement measures for actions undertaken by any state or Federal agency that may adversely affect EFH.
1.2 Need
Fish in the coastal waters of the United States, highly migratory species of the high seas, species of the Continental Shelf, and anadromous species that spawn in rivers or estuaries, constitute valuable and renewable natural resources. These fishery resources contribute to the food supply, economy, welfare, and health of the Nation and provide recreational opportunities. Commercial and recreational fishing constitute a major source of employment and contribute significantly to the economy of the Nation. Certain stocks of fish have declined to the point where their survival is threatened. Other stocks of fish have been so substantially reduced in number that they could become similarly threatened as a consequence of increased fishing pressure, the inadequacy of fishery resource conservation and management practices and controls, or habitat losses that have resulted in a diminished capacity to support existing fishing levels. A national habitat program is necessary to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and to realize the full potential of the Nation's fishery resources. (Reference NOAA Technical memorandum 1996) Congress addressed this need via the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) shall establish guidelines, by regulation, to assist the Councils in the description and identification of EFH in FMPs (including adverse impacts on such habitat) and in the consideration of actions to ensure the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. NMFS published two advance notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicited comments to assist in developing a Framework for the proposed guidelines to address the requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
2.1 The Magnuson-Stevens Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, was signed into law on October 11, 1996. It mandates that the Secretary shall, within six months of the date of enactment, establish guidelines, by regulation, to assist the Councils in the description and identification of EFH in FMPs (including adverse impacts on such habitat) and in the consideration of actions to ensure the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. This proposed regulation identifies a process to fulfill the mandate for Councils to identify and describe EFH, including adverse impacts to that habitat, per the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that the Secretary, in consultation with fishing participants, provide each Council with recommendations and information regarding each fishery under that Council's authority to assist it in the identification of EFH, the adverse impacts on that habitat, and actions that should be considered to ensure the conservation and enhancement of that habitat. This regulation proposes to address ecosystem considerations in fishery management. In addition the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary on any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect EFH. The Secretary must respond with recommendations for measures to conserve EFH. The Secretary must provide recommendations to states on state activities that may adversely impact EFH as well. The proposed rule also establishes procedures to implement this consultative requirement.
2.2 Rule Development
In developing this rule, NMFS published two advance notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPR). The first, published in the Federal Register on November 8, 1996, (61 FR 57843) solicited comments to assist NMFS in developing a Framework for the proposed guidelines. The second ANPR was published on January 9, 1997 (62 FR 1306). That ANPR announced the availability of the "Framework for the Description, Identification, Conservation, and Enhancement of Essential Fish Habitat" (Framework). The Framework was developed to provide a detailed outline for the regulation and to serve as an instrument to solicit public comments. The document was made available to the public for comment until February 12, 1997. During that time, NMFS held 15 public meetings, briefings, and workshops across the Nation. Eighty-eight comments were received via mail or fax, and numerous comments were received during the public meetings. NMFS considered those comments in developing the proposed regulation. In addition to the guidelines, a Technical Guidance manual is available to provide further details on how the Councils will identify EFH for managed species and develop amendments to their FMPs.
The specific implementation activities will be fully addressed in future NEPA documents as the operational details become available. This EA only addresses the implementation Framework at the national level. Future NEPA documents for individual actions pursuant to the EFH regulation and the Magnuson-Stevens Act will use this EA as their base. These future NEPA documents will address alternatives and mitigation measures for each FMP EFH amendment.
2.3 Definitions
Essential fish habitat is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." For the purpose of interpreting the definition of essential fish habitat: "waters" includes aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include historic areas where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle.
Fish habitat is the place where a fish species is found during some or all of its life. Fish habitat is used here both in the traditional sense where structure or substrate delineates its geographic boundaries (e.g., coral reefs, marshes, and kelp beds) and in the less conventional sense where boundaries are more fluid (e.g., turbidity zones, thermoclines, and fronts separating water masses). Historical fish habitat is the geographic area where a fish species was found at some point in time; this habitat may not be used now if the species distribution has changed or has been reduced, or access has been altered by man or natural events. Fish species use habitat for spawning; breeding; migration; feeding and growth; and for shelter to reduce mortality. Most habitats provide only a subset of these functions. Fish habitat can change with life history stage, abundance, the presence of other species, and with temporal and spatial variability in the environment. The type of habitat available, its attributes, and its functions are important to the productivity of a fish species. For a healthy stock of a species where sufficient information exists to determine the necessary habitat to support the target production goal, EFH should be a subset of all existing habitat for the species.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternative is to implement the proposed regulation thereby satisfying the Magnuson-Stevens Act's requirement for the Secretary to develop guidelines, to assist the Councils in the description and identification of EFH (including adverse impacts) in FMPs, and conservation and management measures for EFH. Various methods of regulatory implementation were considered as alternatives. The major issues (alternative implementation) that could affect the results of these different methods of implementation of the EFH regulation were addressed at public meetings. There presently exists no other program that would address the concerns covered under the Magnuson-Stevens Act's EFH amendments.
3.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative, required by NEPA, consists of conditions under current programs and regulations pursued by Federal and state agencies outside the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It is the baseline against which other actions can be compared. There presently exists no other program that would address the concerns covered under the Magnuson-Stevens Act's EFH amendments.
3.2 Preferred Alternative (Proposed Regulation)
The preferred alternative is to implement the proposed regulation thereby satisfying the Magnuson-Stevens Act's requirement for the Secretary to develop guidelines, to assist the Councils in the description and identification of EFH (including adverse impacts) in FMPs, and conservation and management measures for EFH. The proposed regulation accomplishes this statutory requirement by establishing processes for: 1) the description and identification of EFH; 2) the identification of adverse impacts on EFH; 3) providing NMFS's EFH recommendation and information to the Councils; and 4) Federal agencies to consult with NMFS if their actions may adversely affect EFH, and for NMFS and the Councils to provide comments on these actions.
The proposed regulation establishes a four-leveled approach to gather and organize the data necessary to describe and identify EFH. Each level represents a different kind of information about the habitat requirements of managed species. At the lowest level, only presence/absence data are available to describe the distribution of a species. At the higher levels, information is available on density by habitat, reproduction and survival by habitat, and production by habitat. This information should be used in a risk-averse manner, erring of the side of inclusiveness to insure adequate protection for EFH of managed species. If only level 1 information is available, then EFH is everywhere a species is found. If information for levels 2 through 4 is available, then habitats valued most highly through this analysis should be considered essential for the species. However, habitats of intermediate and low value may also be essential, depending on the health of the fish population and the ecosystem.
As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the proposed regulation specifies that the identification of activities that may have an adverse impact on EFH must include fishing activities, as well as those activities not related to fishing. In the future, FMPs must: 1.) identify activities that have potential adverse effects on EFH quantity and quality; 2.) describe the EFH most likely to be affected by these activities; and 3.) describe the known or potential impacts to EFH. To the extent practicable, FMPs should identify and describe activities that influence habitat function on an ecosystem or watershed scale. This analysis should include a cumulative impacts analysis and an ecological risk assessment. With regard to adverse impacts from fishing, FMPs must contain an assessment of the potential adverse effects of all gear types used in EFH, including consideration of the establishment of research closure areas to evaluate the impact of any fishing activity that physically alters EFH.
After reviewing the best available scientific information, and in cooperation with the Councils, fishery participants, interstate commissions, Federal agencies, state agencies, and other interested parties, NMFS will develop recommendations and information to assist the Councils in the identification of EFH for each FMP. Prior to submitting an EFH recommendation, NMFS will make the draft recommendation available for public review through the Councils process. After receiving public comment, NMFS will revise its draft recommendation, as appropriate, and provide the recommendation and information to the Council.
The proposed regulation will establish procedures for coordination and consultation on Federal and state activities that may adversely affect EFH. This consultation process may be consolidated with other interagency consultation procedures required under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Power Act, and other statutes.
Consultation between Federal agencies and NMFS will be accomplished through either a "General Concurrence," "Abbreviated Consultation," or "Expanded Consultation." A General Concurrence applies to categories of actions that NMFS has determined to cause no more than minimal adverse impact on EFH, either individually or cumulatively. These activities may need no review by NMFS, or NMFS may request notification and the opportunity to request consultation for certain types of activities. Abbreviated Consultation applies to those activities that will likely not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH, and that do not require detailed analysis. Expanded Consultation applies to those activities that would have substantial adverse impacts on EFH and/or require detailed analysis to develop conservation recommendations. Under both types of consultation, the action agency will be required to prepare an EFH assessment describing the action and the effect of the action on EFH. After reviewing the EFH assessment (and, in the case of Expanded Consultation, after performing a detailed analysis of potential effects of the proposed action), NMFS will formulate EFH conservation recommendations and provide the recommendations to the action agency, with a copy to the appropriate Council.
Within 30 of receipt of recommendations from NMFS or the Council(s), the Federal action agency must provide NMFS and the Council a written response describing measures proposed by the agency to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse impacts on EFH. If the action agency's response is inconsistent with NMFS or Council recommendations, the response must explain the reasons for not adopting the EFH conservation recommendations. The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries may request a meeting with the head of the action agency to resolve any disagreements over EFH conservation recommendations.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require state agencies to consult with NMFS or the Councils, but it does require NMFS to make EFH conservation recommendations to state agencies, whose actions adversely affect EFH. Procedures will be established at a regional level to provide EFH conservation recommendations to state agencies. When an action adversely affecting EFH requires both Federal and state involvement, the Federal and state consultation processes will be coordinated.
3.3 Alternative Regulatory Implementation
Various methods of regulatory implementation were considered as alternatives. The major issues (alternative implementation) that could affect the results of these different methods of implementation of the EFH regulation were addressed at public meetings, held in conjunction with Council meetings at various locations across the country, and at two workshops. A Federal Register notice announced the availability of the Framework, and provided a detailed outline for the regulation. Public comments were requested. After reviewing the comments several major policy issues emerged. The two major alternatives are presented below.
3.3.1 Alternative: Allow EFH designation for non-managed fish species.
Comments received during the ANRM stated that the requirements for protection of habitat changed when Congress modified the wording in the Magnuson-Stevens Act from describing essential "fishery" habitat, to essential "fish" habitat to require the description and identification of EFH for all fish species under the authority of a Council. Moreover, some Councils have taken actions in FMPs to protect the habitat of species that are not currently managed. They are concerned that limiting the EFH mandate to managed species will prevent them from continuing to do this. NMFS considered the alternative of authorizing the Councils to describe, identify, and comment on actions that may adversely affect the EFH of non-managed species.
3.3.2 Alternative: "Necessary" Habitat
The legal definition of EFH in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The Framework interpreted necessary to mean "the habitat required to support a managed species or assemblage at a target production level." Target production level was defined as at least maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and should be higher based on the feasibility of restoring lost or degraded habitat. The linkage of EFH to a target production level and MSY was strongly criticized in many of the comments. The proposed rule interprets necessary to mean the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem.
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed rule will have a direct and indirect effect on the environment. The environment that will be directly affected by the proposed rule is fish habitats designated as EFH. Environments that could be indirectly affected by the proposed rule include fish habitats that are not designated as EFH, and other areas where activities determined to have an adverse impact on EFH are modified or redirected. Fish populations themselves will be directly affected through conservation and enhancement of EFH. The proposed rule also has the potential to have an impact on the fishing industry.
4.1 Environment Affected Directly
Because of the large variability in the types of fish species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the types of areas designated as EFH will encompass a wide range of aquatic habitats. For example, streams and rivers supporting anadromous fish species; marine and estuarine habitats such as seagrass beds, coral reefs, tidal marshes, coastal wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, cobble with attached fauna, dense mud and clay burrows, and oceanic banks and continental shelf or slope areas extending to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) limit all have the potential to be designated as EFH for one or more fish species. Areas that do not currently support fish, but that have historically supported fish, or that could support fish if restored, may also be designated as EFH if such areas can reasonably be restored. Geographically, EFH will be designated in all states with a marine coastline. Overall, the environment directly affected by the proposed rule is likely to be a substantial amount of the existing marine and estuarine habitat in the United States. Some of the species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act are anadromous fish, such as salmon, which spend most of their lives in the marine environment but migrate to fresh water streams for spawning. For these species, it is likely that EFH will be designated in some fresh water streams in coastal and inland states.
The environment affected directly will be a subset of the habitat currently or historically used by fish managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments in coastal States are most likely to be affected, although environments in inland States that are important to anadromous fish may also be affected. Many of these habitats are already adversely affected by urban/suburban development and agriculture. Fish populations managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act will be directly effected by the proposed rule when EFH receives increased protection or is restored. The Appendix contains a list of Fishery Management Plans.
4.1.1 Fish Habitat
The fish habitat that could be affected by the proposed rule is, in some cases, already adversely affected by development, agriculture, pollution, and many other activities that have decreased the habitat's ability to support fish species. For example, it has been estimated that the lower 48 states of the United States have lost 53% of the 215 million acres of wetlands that existed in pre-colonial times. Agriculture activities were responsible for 87% of the wetland loss from 1954 to 1974 (Tiner, 1984), but more recent estimates suggest that more wetlands are now being lost to urban development than to agriculture (Brady and Flather, 1994). This trend is significant because most urban development is concentrated in coastal areas. In fact, the rate of wetland loss to development is currently three times higher in coastal states than in inland states. Estuarine wetlands make up only 5% of the wetlands in the coterminous United States, with 78% of those estuarine wetlands occurring in the southeast United States. Approximately half of the Nation's estuarine wetlands have been lost since pre-colonial times (Dahl et al., 1991). Rates of coastal wetland loss have slowed substantially from the 45 thousand acres a year that occurred between 1954 and 1974 (Tiner, 1984), to approximately 20 thousand acres a year during the late 1980's and early 1990's (Brady and Flather, 1994). Approximately 90% of that loss is occurring in the southeast United States, in states like Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina.
4.1.2 Seagrass Beds
Seagrass beds are another type of important fish habitat that has suffered significant losses. Large areas of Florida, where seagrasses were once abundant, have suffered declines. Lake Worth, North Biscayne Bay, Indian River Bay, and, most recently, Florida Bay, have experienced or are currently experiencing massive die-offs of seagrass beds. In the Chesapeake Bay, which contains thirteen species of seagrass, seagrass abundance declined sharply since the early 1970's; only 38,000 acres were documented for all species in 1984. However, conservation efforts and improvements in Chesapeake Bay water quality have led to Bay seagrasses increasing.
4.1.3 Riverine Fish habitatM
In the case of riverine fish habitat, which is particularly important to anadromous fish, habitat loss is often an issue of: loss of fish access, water pollution, and physical destruction of habitat. On the Pacific coast there are well-known examples of fisheries resources damaged by loss of access to habitat and degradation of available habitat. In California's Central Valley, dam construction has reduced the amount of fish habitat from over 6,000 miles of original stream habitat to less than 300 miles of habitat. In the Columbia River basin, 11 dams have been constructed on the main stem Columbia River, and several more on the Snake River. The Elwah River, which originates on Washington's Olympic Peninsula in Olympic National Park, originally supported five species of Pacific salmon and four other species of anadromous fish. In 1912 and 1927, two dams were constructed less than five miles from the mouth of the Elwah, cutting off all natural spawning activity above the dams for the last 80 years (California Department of Fish and Game, 1993 and California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988).M
4.2 Environment Affected Indirectly
Activities determined to have an adverse impact on EFH may be redirected and concentrated in other areas such as uplands or aquatic areas not designated as EFH. Through this process, the proposed rule could indirectly affect almost any part of the coastal watershed of the United States, although the areas most likely to be affected by redirected activities are coastal areas where activities likely to adversely affect EFH occur.
4.2.1 Commercial Fishing
The fishing industry harvested 4.5 million metric tons of fish and shellfish in 1995. This catch was worth $3.8 billion dockside (NMFS, 1996). In 1988 commercial fishing employed over 274,000 fishers and 90,000 shore workers. Fishing is an important part of the economies of many states, but is of particular importance in Alaska (whose fisheries are the most productive in the country), Louisiana (second in productivity), the pacific northwest (where salmon stocks are imperiled), and the New England states (where many local economies have been adversely affected by the decline of the codfish and haddock fisheries). The fishing industry includes large businesses such as factory trawlers to small businesses such as individual, self-employed fishermen. Although some parts of the fishing industry are thriving, many fish stocks are currently overfished.
4.2.2 Recreational Fishing
Recreational fishing provides significant social, cultural, and economic benefits to American society, and is the second most popular form of outdoor recreation in the United States (swimming being first). Fishing provides an introduction to the aquatic environment and an opportunity to develop an appreciation for natural resource conservation and the importance of habitats. Recreational fishing contributes significantly to the Nation's economy. The 1991 National Survey estimates anglers spent $24 billion on tackle, equipment, food, lodging, and other goods and services related to fishing. The Department of Commerce funded study estimated that these expenditures provided jobs for 1.3 million people and generated $2.1 million in Federal income tax revenue. The recreational fishing industry is thriving, but many recreational fishing opportunities are currently facing over demand and loss due to pollution and other forms of human impacts.
4.3. Consultation and Commenting Process
The current process by which NMFS reviews and comments on activities that may adversely affect fish habitat involves the consultation requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq., which applies to all actions requiring a Federal permit or license to modify waters of the United States, and the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq., which applies to hydropower projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The consultation provisions of the FWCA and parts of the FPA are not mandatory for either NMFS or the Federal licensing or permitting agency. The FPA requires FERC to accept NMFS recommendations. If FERC does not accept them, FERC must respond, in writing, stating why NMFS comments are counter to the law, and how FERC's substituted conditions comport to the law. The FWCA does not require any Federal agency response to NMFS recommendations, however, NMFS comments must be given equal consideration with other aspects of the proposed project. NMFS reviews and comments annually on thousands of Federal activities that could adversely affect fish habitat. Most of these activities are authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Since the vast majority of these comments are provided under the FWCA process, little information is generally available concerning a Federal agency's response (or lack thereof) to NMFS recommendations concerning activities that adversely affect fish habitat. With respect to comments provided on CWA Section 404 authorizations, it appears that consideration and acceptance of NMFS recommendations to conserve fish habitat varies considerably among Corps Districts. These concerns should be addressed through more coordination and documentation of the recommendation consideration and acceptance process.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The proposed rule will change the way fish habitats are currently managed by placing additional emphasis on habitats important to fisheries. The proposed rule (see appendix C) does not establish any new regulatory jurisdiction for NMFS or the Councils over these habitats, but it does establish a strengthened role for NMFS and the Councils in providing recommendations to Federal and state agencies on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The environmental consequences will be both direct and indirect after the specific FMP (see appendices D and E) are modified to address EFH.
5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on Fish Habitat
The intent of the proposed rule is to describe, identify, conserve, and enhance EFH. The achievement of these goals depends on individual decisions made by Federal and state agencies. It is not possible to predict the site specific nature of those decisions. For that reason, it is not possible to quantify the environmental consequences of the site specific actions on EFH. Therefore, NEPA documentation will be prepared to fully address site specific activities such as acreage of fish habitat preserved, beneficial consequences, the consequences to aquatic areas not designated as EFH, and upland areas in the coastal region, where activities with adverse effects on EFH may be redirected. Examples of some of these site specific activities are presented below. This EA addresses the action of the proposed rule in generic terms of the improvement of fish habitat in most State waters (0-3 miles offshore) and in general Federal waters (3-200 miles offshore). EFH may suggest environmentally sound engineering and management practices (e.g., seasonal restrictions, specific dredging methods, and disposal options) for all dredging and construction projects. Disposal of contaminated dredged material, sewage sludge, industrial waste or other materials in EFH should be avoided or mitigated. Oil and gas exploration, production, transportation, and refining activities in EFH should be avoided or mitigated. Restoration of riparian and shallow coastal areas may take place in EFH. These activities may include restoration of functions of riparian vegetation by re-establishing endemic trees or other appropriate native vegetation and restoration of natural bottom characteristics. Upland restoration measures such as erosion control, road stabilization, culverts upgrade, dike and levee removal to allow fish passage may be necessary to protect EFH. EFH may suggest best land management practices for ensuring compliance with water quality standards at state and Federal levels, improved treatment of sewage, and proper disposal of waste materials. EFH may suggest efforts to minimize depletion/diversion of freshwater flows into rivers and estuaries, destruction/degradation of wetlands, and restoration of native species in watersheds. EFH may suggest habitat restoration to ensure the full utilization of a specific area by the fisheries resources. EFH may require the exclusion of fishing that may cause physical disturbance of the substrate, loss of and/or injury to benthic organisms, loss of prey species and/or their habitat, and loss to other components of the ecosystem. EFH may require the establishment of research closure areas and other measures to evaluate the impact of any fishing activity that physically alters EFH.
5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects on fish populations
The EFH requirements were included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, because of scientific evidence that habitat loss or degradation has compounded, and in some cases magnified the effects of increased fishing pressures. The net effect has been a decline in many of the Nation's important fish stocks. Protection from further adverse impacts and restoration of degraded EFH, where feasible, should reduce some of the stress on populations and therefore, fish populations should stabilize or regain some losses in productivity. Evidence from boreal, temperate, and tropical regions of the world support the theory that if habitat degradation is halted or minimized and biological integrity is restored, associated fish populations will increase both inside the protected areas and outside. This prediction is supported by more than 250 peer-reviewed articles on recovery dynamics of marine fishery reserves, as areas protected from further impacts, in studies around the world. Additional benefits that would be expected from adequate levels of habitat protection include: the restoration of the population age (or size) structure, conservation of genetic diversity in the population, development or maintenance of greater diversity in trophic structure and greater assurance of the availability of alternate trophic pathways; increased resilience for the populations to withstand both natural and anthropogenic stresses; and greater stability in both the populations or assemblages and the fishery catch.
Site specific examples of what an individual EFH may require are presented here. EFH may require fishing gear restrictions such as limit seasonal and areal uses of trawl gear and bottom longlines, net mesh sized, traps, and entanglement gear, reduce fish and shellfish traps set, limit seasonal and areal uses of dredge gear, prohibit use of explosives and chemicals, and restrict diving activities. EFH may require closing some areas to all fishing or specific gear types during spawning, migration, foraging and nursery activities. EFH may require limits on the take of species that provide structural habitat for other species assemblages or communities and limits on the take of prey species.
5.3 Direct and Indirect Consequences on Fisheries
Consequences in the fisheries are expected to be temporal in nature with any potential short-term losses more than balanced out by long-term gains in the fishery. The long-term expectation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's EFH mandate is that declining trends in fish stocks can be halted or reversed by minimizing adverse impacts to EFH and restoring lost habitats or access to habitats, where feasible, along with the other management measures called for in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Protecting the quality and quantity of EFH should increase survival potentials of managed fishery species and increase biological productivity of both the ecosystem and the stocks of managed species dependent on the components of that ecosystem. Increases in stock abundance and fish sizes should result in increased economic return and stabilization of interannual variations in catch as well as provide increased resistance to episodic disturbance events.
The most likely short-term consequences to the fishing participants, both commercial and recreational, would be relocation of fishing effort, if scientific evidence suggests that particular fishing methods or gear types are adversely affecting the quantity or quality of habitat necessary to one or more life stage of a managed species. These restrictions could be either seasonal, annual, or permanent. In this instance, for the duration of the restriction, fishers who have traditionally used that method or area may need to increase their search or travel distance to find other suitable fishing grounds or they may need to invest in gears more appropriate for use in the designated EFH. Short-term economic losses should be compensated by future increases in catch levels and increased stability in the fishery.
5.4 Unavoidable Direct and Indirect Adverse Environmental Impacts
The implementation of this proposed regulation should not produce any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. This proposed regulation is intended to protect the environment by controlling physical and biological impacts to living marine resources. There may be some changes in the patterns of resource uses in order to avoid activities that degrade coastal waters and habitats. These changes, such as directing fishing actions away from critical coastal areas, would not result in any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. In addition, monitoring techniques may accompany the management measures to assess the success of measures in reducing impacts to EFH. The specific monitoring requirements will likely be developed for each specific plan and consultation.
5.5 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses Of Environment And Maintenance And Enhancement Of Long-Term Productivity
The overall purpose of this proposed regulation is to conserve, protect, and restore coastal waters and thus to enhance the long-term health of all living marine resources. This proposed regulation will not include any short-term uses of the environment that may reduce long-term productivity. Short-term uses of the environment may have to be modified in response to implementation of management measures. This may result in short-term costs to the users, but will result in long-term benefits to the economy and environment through the conservation, preservation, and restoration of living marine resources and their habitats.
5.6 Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitment Of Resources
This proposed regulation will not cause any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources as a result of their implementation. The regulation will require the development of maps of the general distribution and geographic limits of each life stage for specific managed species. The identification of EFH may have the effect of restricting development, or other activities in the sensitive coastal areas, and concentrating these activities in other locations. These actions may be considered as an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.
5.7 Direct and Indirect Effects on Consultation and Commenting Process
The proposed rule will improve the current Federal consultation and comment process by establishing which fish habitats are most important, requiring NMFS to comment on all actions that may adversely affect EFH, and by requiring Federal agencies to respond in writing to NMFS recommendations to conserve and enhance fish habitat. The synthesis and publication of information on EFH should strongly encourage avoidance of activities that may adversely affect fish habitat in these areas. Development projects that may adversely impact EFH may need to be set back further from the coast, provide vegetated buffers or alternate methods to treat surface runoff, relocate away from the area designated EFH or take other actions to reduce their detrimental effects on EFH. Through adequate prior knowledge of the EFH designations, consequences to this sector should be minimized through advance scoping of project placement and the planning for appropriate technologies. The requirement that Federal agencies respond to NMFS recommendations regarding activities that may adversely affect EFH should encourage more consistent and serious consideration of NMFS recommendations. Furthermore, Federal agency responses will provide NMFS staff with information on which recommendations are considered acceptable by Federal agencies, and why. The proposed rule also establishes a process for NMFS to comment to state agencies, which provides an additional avenue for NMFS to influence decisions on activities with the potential to affect fish habitat.
5.8 Summary of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative
The intent of the proposed rule is to identify habitat essential to fish managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and promote its conservation and restoration through the development and synthesis of fish habitat information, and the establishment of specific commenting and consultation requirements. EFH described and identified pursuant to the proposed rule will allow the establishment of a national information base for making decisions about the management of fish habitat, and improve coordination and consultation among Federal and state agencies, and the Councils, in the management of adverse effects on EFH. Implementation of the proposed rule should result in an improvement in the conservation and restoration of fish habitat and fish stocks, which should result in improved stability for the fishing industry. The action of implementation of the proposed rule is considered not significant because it sets in place a data base, proposes a consultation process, and identifies potential actions that should be considered to ensure conservation and enhancement of habitat. Specific information on the effects in site specific EFHs will be provided in NEPA documentation prepared during the FMP amendment process.
5.9 Consequence Of The No Action Alternative
The consequence of the No Action Alternative is that a national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and to realize the full potential of the Nation's fishery resources would not be realized. Due to the fact that the legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act would not be met, the No Action Alternative is not the preferred alternative.
5.10 Consequences Of Alternative Regulatory Implementation
The alternative for allowing EFH designation for non-managed fish species was determined to be inconsistent with the legal requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to describe and identify EFH for those species in the management units of FMPs and the area of EFHs would be much larger.
The consequences of implementing the alternative of interpretation of "necessary" could be that EFH would not be designated for species where data do not exist linking productivity to habitat. Moreover habitat conservation efforts could be limited by MSY levels that are depressed due to severe overfishing or habitat destruction.
6.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
Extensive coordination occurred during the process to develop this proposed regulation. This coordination effort involved public notices, workshops, and meetings as well as information exchanges with Federal agencies. These efforts lead to some of the information contained in this EA. The coordination on the Framework that lead to this proposed regulation is presented below.
NMFS invited comments and suggestions on its Framework for the guideline regulation mandated by Magnuson-Stevens Act. Specifically, NMFS received comments and information on: 1.) The proposed tiered approach to the description and identification of EFH; 2.) the proposed approach to the identification of adverse impacts to EFH; 3.) the use of geographic information systems to display EFH; 4.) potential impacts of fishing on EFH and conservation and management measures to minimize or mitigate those impacts; 5.) the proposed process for NMFS to provide EFH recommendations to the Councils; 6.) the proposed process for Federal and state agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely impact EFH; 7.) the proposed procedures for NMFS to provide EFH conservation recommendations to the proposed procedures for NMFS to provide EFH conservation recommendations to Federal and state agencies; 8.) the proposed process for Councils to comment on Federal and state activities that may adversely affect EFH; and 9.) the proposed process for NMFS and the Councils to coordinate consultations and recommendations. NMFS also received comments on which portions of the Framework should be adopted by regulation.
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Russell Bellmer, Ph.D., Marine Ecologist
Lee Crockett, M.S., Fishery Biologist
Ronald L. Hill, M.S., Fish Ecologist
Susan-Marie Stedman, M.S., Wetland Ecologist8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Brady, S.J. and Flather, C.H., 1994. Changes in wetlands on nonfederal rural land of the conterminous United States from 1982 to 1987. Env. Manag. 18(5):693-705.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1993. Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan for Action Department of Fish and Game Sacramento, CA.
California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988. Restoring the Balance 1988 Annual Report Sacramento, CA.
Dahl, T.E. and Johnson, C.E., 1991. Wetlands Status and Trends in the Coterminous United States Mid-1970's to Mid-1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 28 pp.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-23 December 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: As Amended Through October 11, 1996.
Tiner, R.W., Jr., 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the proposed regulation implementing the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to describe, identify, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). NEPA documentation will be undertaken for each Fishery Management Plan to fully address site specific affects of EFH implementation. The environmental review process led me to conclude that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required by Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. A copy of the environmental assessment and supporting documentation are available from the Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Date: ________________
Signature: _________________________
APPENDICES APPENDIX A
APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND COMPLIANCE
Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671g
Activities under this proposed regulation will not result in an increase in the discharge of air pollutants.
Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Activities under this proposed regulation will not result in an increase or decrease in the discharge of water pollutants.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 16 U.S.C. § 1451-1464
Activities under this proposed regulation will be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved state CZMA programs. These determinations will be made prior to implementation of site specific actions within individual State programs.
Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Activities under this proposed regulation will not have an detrimental affect on any Federally listed species or their habitats. Informal consultation has been initiated with NMFS.
Estuary Protection Act 16 U.S.C. § 121 et seq.
Activities under this proposed regulation will not have an adverse affect on any estuary. These proposed regulations will help to enhance, conserve, and protect some habitats within estuaries.
Fish And Wildlife Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2911
Activities under this proposed regulation will encourage the conservation of non-game fish and wildlife.
Fish And Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.
Activities under this proposed regulation will have a positive affect on fish and wildlife resources. Coordination has taken place with the appropriate offices within NMFS.
Magnuson Fishery Conservation And Management Act 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
Activities under this proposed regulation will have a positive affect on fish resources. Coordination has taken place with the appropriate Councils.
Marine Mammal Protection Act 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et sez. 1401-1407, 1538, 4107
Activities under this proposed regulation will not have an adverse affect on marine mammals. Informal consultation has initiated with the appropriate offices within NMFS.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. § 715 to 715a
Activities under this proposed regulation will not have an adverse affect on migratory birds or programs under this Act.
National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347
The preparation of the Environmental Assessment and environmental review have occurred under this Act.
APPENDIX B
EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND COMPLIANCE
Exec. Order No. 11514; 34 FR 8693 - Protection And Enhancement Of Environmental Quality
The preparation of the Environmental Assessment and environmental coordination have occurred under NEPA.
Exec. Order No. 11990; 42 FR 26961) - Protection Of Wetlands
The activities under this proposed regulation will help to ensure the protection of wetlands and the service that they provide.
Exec. Order No. 12962; 60 FR 30769 - Recreational Fisheries
The activities under this proposed regulation will help to ensure the protection of recreational fisheries and the service that they provide.
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED RULE REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No.961030300-7090-03; I.D. 120996A]
RIN 0648-AJ30Magnuson Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.__________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to issue regulations containing guidelines for the description and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH) in fishery management plans (FMPs), adverse impacts on EFH, and actions to conserve and enhance EFH. The regulations would also provide a process for NMFS to coordinate and consult with Federal and state agencies on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The guidelines are required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The purpose of the rule is to assist Fishery Management Councils (Councils) in fulfilling the requirements set forth by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to amend their FMPs to describe and identify EFH, minimize adverse effects on EFH, and identify other actions to conserve and enhance EFH. The coordination and consultation provisions would specify procedures for adequate consultation with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH. DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before May 23, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, Attention: EFH, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282. Copies of the Technical Assistance Manual, previous advance notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), environmental assessment (EA), and "Framework for the Description, Identification, Conservation, and Enhancement of Essential Fish Habitat" (Framework) are available. (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Crockett, NMFS, 301/713-2325.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the ANPRs, Framework, proposed regulation, EA, and Technical Assistance Manual are available via the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation Internet website at: http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/rschreib/habitat.html or by contacting one of the following NMFS Offices:
Office of Habitat Conservation, Attention: EFH, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282; 301/713-2325.
Northeast Regional Office, Attention: Habitat and Protected Resources Division, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; 508/281-9328.
Southeast Regional Office, Attention: Habitat Conservation Division, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702; 813/570-5317.
Southwest Regional Office, Attention: Habitat Conservation Division, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802; 310/980-4041.
Northwest Regional Office, Attention: Habitat Conservation Branch, 525 N.E. Oregon St., suite 500, Portland, OR 97232; 503/230-5421.
Alaska Regional Office, Attention: Protected Resources Management Division, 709 West 9th Street, Federal Bldg., room 461, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; 907/586-7235.
Related DocumentsConcurrent with publication of this proposed rule, NMFS will make available "Technical Guidance to Implement the Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for the Magnuson-Stevens Act." This manual provides supplemental information for developing EFH recommendations and FMP amendments. The document is intended to be updated regularly as new and innovative methods are available in habitat identification and mapping. The Technical Guidance Manual is based on and will contain similar detail to that included in the Framework. The draft manual is available for comment and may be obtained from any NMFS office listed in the Supplementary Information Section.
Background
This rulemaking is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq) as reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, signed into law on October 11, 1996. It mandates that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) shall, within 6 months of the date of enactment, establish guidelines by regulation to assist the Councils to describe and identify EFH in FMPs (including adverse impacts on such habitat) and to consider actions to conserve and enhance such habitat. These proposed regulations would establish a process for Councils to identify and describe EFH, including adverse impacts to that habitat, per the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that the Secretary, in consultation with fishing participants, provide each Council with recommendations and information regarding each fishery under that Council's authority to assist it to identify EFH, the adverse impacts on that habitat, and actions that should be considered to conserve and enhance that habitat. The proposed regulation would establish procedures to carry out this mandate. Councils must submit FMP amendments containing these new provisions by October 11, 1998.
In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary on any activity authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, that may adversely affect EFH. The Secretary must respond with recommendations for measures to conserve EFH. The Secretary must provide recommendations to states as well. The regulation would also establish procedures to implement these consultative requirements.
This regulation proposes to address ecosystem considerations in fishery management. Through the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, FMPs are now required to describe and identify EFH used by managed fishery resources. In addition, FMPs are required to identify actions to ensure conservation and enhancement of EFH.
In developing this rule, NMFS published two ANPRs. The first, published in the Federal Register on November 8, 1996 (61 FR 57843), solicited comments to assist NMFS in developing a Framework for the proposed guidelines. The second ANPR was published on January 9, 1997 (62 FR 1306). That ANPR announced the availability of the Framework. The Framework was developed to provide a detailed outline for the regulations and to serve as an instrument to solicit public comments. The document was made available to the public for comment from January 9, 1997, through February 12, 1997. During that time, NMFS held fifteen public meetings, briefings, and workshops across the nation. Eighty-eight comments were received via mail or fax, and numerous comments were received during the public meetings. NMFS considered those comments in developing the proposed regulations. In addition to the regulations, a Technical Guidance Manual is available (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) to provide further details on how the Councils will identify EFH for managed species and develop amendments to their FMPs.
Relation to Other Laws
The Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes expanded requirements for habitat sections of FMPs and requires consultation between the Secretary and Federal and state agencies on activities that may adversely impact EFH for those species managed under the Act. It also requires the Federal action agency to respond to comments and recommendations made by the Secretary and Councils. For the purpose of consultation on activities that may adversely affect EFH, the description of EFH included in the FMP would be determinative of the limits of EFH. Mapping of EFH would be required in the proposed regulations to assist the public and affected parties to learn where EFH is generally located. However, due to anticipated data gaps and the dynamic nature of physical and biological habitat characteristics, maps would be used as supplementary information during the consultation process.The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) provides a mechanism for the Secretary to comment to other Federal agencies on activities affecting any living marine resources. Under the FWCA, Federal agencies are required to consult with the Secretary on habitat impacts from water development projects. The Secretary is not, however, required to consult with Federal agencies on all activities that may adversely affect habitat of managed species, nor are agencies required to respond to Secretarial comments under the FWCA. The FWCA will continue to allow the Secretary to comment and make recommendations on Federal activities that may adversely affect living marine resources and their habitat, even if such habitat is not identified as EFH.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) definition of "critical habitat" to describe habitats under its authority includes areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, as well as those unoccupied areas that are deemed "essential for the conservation of a species." The EFH regulations would specify that, for species listed under ESA, EFH will always include critical habitat. EFH may be broader than critical habitat if restoration of historic habitat areas is feasible, and more habitat is necessary to support a sustainable fishery. Because the statutory definition of EFH includes the full life cycle of species, including growth to maturity, EFH will also be broader than critical habitat where marine habitats have not been included in the identification of critical habitat (e.g., for anadromous salmonids listed under the ESA).
Coordination with Interested Parties
NMFS would closely coordinate the development of EFH recommendations with the appropriate Councils, fishing participants, interstate fisheries commissions, Federal agencies, state agencies, and other interested parties.
Relation Between EFH and State-Managed Waters
Many species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act spend some part of their life cycle in state waters (in most states 0-3 miles offshore) as well as Federal waters (generally 3-200 miles offshore). Because the statutory definition of EFH covers the entire life cycle of a species, EFH may be identified within both Federal and state waters. Therefore, the consultation provisions for activities that may adversely affect EFH may require the Secretary to consult on activities in both Federal and state waters. Councils may also comment on activities in both Federal and state waters. The requirement for Councils to institute management measures to minimize adverse effects of fishing, however, would only address those fishing activities that occur in Federal waters.Summary of Principal Comments
The public comments focused on eight issues. A summary of these issues and the NMFS response follows.
Issue 1: Species of fish for which the Councils must describe and identify EFH. NMFS received comments suggesting that EFH should be described and identified for only those species managed by a Council in a FMP. Other interpretations suggested that "fish" includes all species inhabiting the geographic jurisdiction of a Council. The latter interpretation could include species not currently managed, but considered important by the Council. NMFS concludes that Councils should describe and identify EFH for only those species managed under an FMP. According to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, EFH can only be designated through an amendment to an FMP. The Council would not be precluded from identifying the habitat required by other species not covered in an FMP and taking steps to protect it. To the extent that such habitat requirements enhance the ecosystem approach to FMPs, the Councils would be encouraged to identify such habitat. However, those habitats of currently non-managed species would not be considered EFH.Issue 2: Timing of the development of EFH recommendations by NMFS. Some commentors suggested that EFH for all species within a fishery management unit must be completed simultaneously. Other commentors suggested that EFH be described for only those species whose catch is a significant component of the fishery. NMFS has concluded that the law requires the Councils to identify EFH for all managed species within its jurisdiction within the Act's EFH amendment period. The Technical Guidance Manual suggests several ways that Councils may perform this task more efficiently.
Issue 3: Identification of EFH for prey species. Some comments suggested that EFH be identified for all prey species, as opposed to just the predominant prey species. Other comments suggested that identification of EFH for prey species was unnecessary because their habitat requirements are covered by the range of EFH for the managed species. NMFS has concluded that the habitat of prey species would not be included as EFH for managed species. Rather, Councils would identify the major prey species for the species managed under the FMP, and would describe the habitat of significant prey species to help in determining if there are activities that would adversely affect their habitat. This analysis would be included in the "adverse effects" section of the EFH FMP amendment, rather than the description and identification of EFH section. The Councils should consider loss of prey habitat as an adverse effect on a managed species.
Issue 4: Interpretation of what habitat is "necessary" for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. In the Framework, NMFS interpreted "necessary" to mean the amount of habitat needed to support a target production level which included, at a minimum, maximum sustainable yield of the fishery plus other ecological benefits such as being prey for other living marine resources. Many commentors were concerned that this connection was too narrow and suggested that either it not be included in the guidelines, thereby coupling EFH only to feeding, breeding, and growth to maturity, or expanding the definition. NMFS has concluded that the goal of linking "necessary" to production is appropriate, however, this objective has now been defined as the production necessary to support a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem.
Issue 5: Intent of the EFH amendments in relation to fishing. NMFS received comments that clarification is needed regarding fishing in areas identified as EFH. NMFS has now clarified that the intent is not to preclude fishing in areas identified as EFH. Rather, the intent is to refine the Council's and NMFS' abilities to manage fishing activities by taking into account the increasing knowledge and understanding of the importance of habitat, and taking actions to minimize adverse impacts from fishing, to the extent practicable.
Many comments requested guidance on how the Councils would determine when a fishing activity has an adverse impact requiring action. NMFS has provided additional guidance on this concern by proposing to require an assessment of the impacts of all gear types used in the EFH. The assessment would consider closure areas for research to evaluate impacts. The Councils would act to prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse impacts from fishing, to the extent practicable, if there is evidence that a fishing practice is having a substantial adverse impact on EFH based on the assessment. Issue 6: Interpretation of "to the extent practicable". No guidance was provided in the Framework on the exact meaning of the phrase. Some commentors expressed concern that a lack of guidance risked no additional actions being taken by Councils. Others expressed the opinion that the impacts of fishing were already known, and suggested closure areas to protect sensitive habitats. Cost-benefit analysis was also suggested. NMFS has provided additional guidance within the proposed rule. The regulation states that in determining whether minimizing an adverse impact from fishing is practicable, Councils should consider: 1) Whether, and to what extent, the fishing activity is adversely impacting the marine ecosystem, including the managed species; 2) the nature and extent of the adverse effect on EFH; and 3) whether the cost to the fishery is reasonable.
Issue 7: NMFS's interpretation of "substrate". Commentors suggested it be modified to include artificial reefs and shipwrecks as EFH. NMFS agrees with this modification and clarifies that artificial reefs and shipwrecks could be identified as EFH.
Issue 8: Notification of projects under general concurrence. Several comments were received on general concurrences, suggesting that if no notification is required for projects that fall within a general concurrence category, NMFS would be unable to track the cumulative effects of these categories of activities. NMFS continues to state in the regulation that no notice of those actions covered by a general concurrence would be required, but only if a process is in place by the action agency to adequately assess cumulative impacts.
Comments were also received concerning opportunities for public review of general concurrences prior to final approval and implementation. Commentors were concerned that general concurrences could be established that would exempt specific activities from the consultation process without an opportunity for public review. NMFS has provided in the regulations that it would use public Council meetings, or other means, to provide opportunities for public comment on general concurrences prior to formalization. If Council review is not available, NMFS would provide other reasonable means for public review.
Compliance Requirements
While the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH and respond to NMFS's recommendations, the Act did not place direct requirements for compliance with conservation and enhancement recommendations provided by NMFS. The procedures identified in the regulations however, outline a method for cooperation and coordination between agencies, and options for dispute resolution should this become necessary.
Classification
NMFS has prepared a draft environmental assessment that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the environmental assessment is available from NMFS (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would establish guidelines for Councils to identify and describe EFH, including adverse impacts, and conservation and enhancement measures. The proposed regulation requires that the Councils conduct assessments of the effects of fishing on EFH within their jurisdiction. Should Councils establish regulations on fishing as a result of the guidelines and assessments of gear, that action may affect small entities and could be subject to a regulatory flexibility analysis at that time. Finally, the consultation procedures establish a process for NMFS to provide conservation recommendations to Federal and state action agencies. However, because compliance with NMFS' recommendations are not mandatory, any effects on small businesses would be speculative. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed rule was not prepared.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: April 17, 1997
Charles Karnella,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of CommerceFor the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 600--MAGNUSON ACT PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 600.10 is amended by adding the definition for "Essential fish habitat", in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
§600.10 Definitions. * * * * *Essential fish habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting the definition of essential fish habitat: "waters" includes aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle.
* * * * *
3. A new subpart is added to part 600 to read as follows:
Subpart I -- Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Sec.
600.805 Purpose and scope
600.810 Contents of Fishery Management Plans
600.815 Coordination and consultation on actions that may adversely affect EFH§600.805 Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose. This subpart provides guidelines for the description, identification, conservation, and enhancement of, and adverse impacts to, EFH. These guidelines provide the basis for Councils and the Secretary to use in adding the required provision on EFH to an FMP, i.e., description and identification of EFH, adverse impacts on EFH (including minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts from fishing), and other actions to conserve and enhance EFH. This subpart also includes procedures to implement the consultation requirements for all Federal and state actions that may adversely affect EFH.
(b) Scope. An EFH provision in an FMP must include all fish species in the FMU. An FMP may describe, identify, and protect the habitat of species not in an FMU; however, such habitat may not be considered EFH for the purposes of sections 303(a)(7) and 305(b) of the Magnuson Act.
§600.810 Contents of Fishery Management Plans. (a) Mandatory contents -- (1) Habitat requirements by life history stage. FMPs must describe EFH in text and with tables that provide information on the biological requirements for each life history stage of the species. These tables should summarize all available information on environmental and habitat variables that control or limit distribution, abundance, reproduction, growth, survival, and productivity of the managed species. Information in the tables should be supported with citations.
(2) Description and identification of EFH -- (i) Information requirements. (A) An initial inventory of available environmental and fisheries data sources relevant to the managed species should be useful in describing and identifying EFH. This inventory should also help to identify major species-specific habitat data gaps. Deficits in data availability (i.e., accessibility and application of the data) and in data quality (including considerations of scale and resolution; relevance; and potential biases in collection and interpretation) should be identified.
(B) To identify EFH, basic information is needed on current and historic stock size and on the geographic range of the managed species. Information is also required on the temporal and spatial distribution of each major life history stages (defined by developmental and functional shifts). Since EFH should be identified for each major life history stage, data should be collected on the distribution, density, growth, mortality, and production of each stage within all habitats occupied by the species. These data should be obtained from the best available information, including peer-reviewed literature, data reports and "gray" literature, data files of government resource agencies, and any other sources of quality information.
(C) The following approach should be used to gather and organize the data necessary for identifying EFH. Information from all levels will be useful in identifying EFH, and the goal of this procedure should be to include as many levels of analysis as possible within the constraints of the available data. Councils should strive to obtain data sufficient to describe habitat at the highest level of detail (i.e., Level 4).
(1) Level 1: Presence/absence distribution data are available for some or all portions of the geographic range of the species. At this level, only presence/absence data are available to describe the distribution of a species (or life history stage) in relation to existing and potential habitats. Care should be taken to ensure that all habitats have been sampled adequately. In the event that distribution data are available for only portions of the geographic area occupied by a particular life history stage of a species, EFH can be inferred on the basis of distributions among habitats where the species has been found and on information about its habitat requirements and behavior.
(2) Level 2: Habitat-related densities of the species are available. At this level, quantitative data (i.e., relative densities) are available for the habitats occupied by a species or life history stage. Because the efficiency of sampling gear is often affected by habitat characteristics, strict quality assurance criteria are required to ensure that density estimates are comparable among habitats. Density data should reflect habitat utilization, and the degree that a habitat is utilized is assumed to be indicative of habitat value. When assessing habitat value on the basis of fish densities in this manner, temporal changes in habitat availability and utilization should be considered.
(3) Level 3: Growth, reproduction, or survival rates within habitats are available. At this level, data are available on habitat-related growth, reproduction, and/or survival by life history stage. The habitats contributing the most to productivity should be those that support the highest growth, reproduction, and survival of the species (or life history stage).
(4) Level 4: Production rates by habitat are available. At this level, data are available that directly relate the production rates of a species or life history stage to habitat type, quantity, quality, and location. Essential habitats are those necessary to maintain fish production consistent with a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem.
(ii) EFH determination. (A) The information obtained through the analysis in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section will allow Councils to assess the relative value of habitats. Councils should apply this information in a risk-averse fashion, erring on the side of inclusiveness to ensure adequate protection for EFH of managed species. If only Level 1 information is available, EFH is everywhere a species is found. If Levels 2 through 4 information is available, habitats valued most highly through this analysis should be considered essential for the species. However, habitats of intermediate and low value may also be essential, depending on the health of the fish population and the ecosystem.
(B) If a species is overfished or recovering from a population decline, all habitats used by the species should be considered essential in addition to certain historic habitats that are necessary to support the recovery of the population and for which restoration is feasible.
(C) EFH will always be greater than or equal to the "critical habitat" for any managed species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
(D) Where a stock of a species is considered to be healthy and sufficient information exists to determine the necessary habitat to support the target production goal, then EFH for a species should be a subset of all existing habitat for the species.
(E) Ecological relationships among species, and between the species and their habitat, require, where possible, that an ecosystem approach be used in determining the EFH of a managed species or species assemblage. The extent of the EFH should be based on the judgment of the Secretary and the appropriate Council(s) regarding the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain a managed species or species assemblage at a target production goal that supports a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem. Councils must establish target production goals for the fish species in the FMU of an FMP as a goal of the FMP. In determining a target production goal that supports a sustainable fishery and a healthy ecosystem, the Secretary and the appropriate Council(s) should consider: (1) The prey requirements of the managed species; (2) the extent to which the managed species is prey for other managed species or marine mammals; (3) the production necessary to support a sustainable fishery; and (4) other ecological functions provided by the managed species. If degraded or inaccessible habitat has contributed to the reduced yields of a species or assemblage, and in the judgment of the Secretary and the appropriate Council(s), the degraded conditions can be reversed through such actions as improved fish passage techniques (for fish blockages), improved water quality or quantity measures (removal of contaminants or increasing flows), and similar measures that are feasible, then EFH should include those habitats that would be essential to the species to obtain increased yields.
(iii) EFH Mapping Requirements. The general distribution and geographic limits of EFH for each life history stage should be presented in FMPs in the form of maps. Ultimately, these data should be incorporated into a geographic information system (GIS) to facilitate analysis and presentation. These maps may be presented as fixed in time and space but they should encompass all appropriate temporal and spatial variability in the distribution of EFH. If the geographic boundaries of EFH change seasonally, annually, or decadally, these changing distributions should be represented in the maps. Different types of EFH should be identified on maps along with areas used by different life history stages of the species. The type of information used to identify EFH should be included in map legends, and more detailed and informative maps should be produced as more complete information about population responses (e.g., growth, survival, or reproductive rates) to habitat characteristics becomes available. Where the present distribution or stock size of a species or life history stage is different from the historical distribution or stock size, then maps of historical habitat boundaries should be included in the FMP, if known. The EFH maps are a means to visually present the EFH described in the FMP. If the maps and information in the description of EFH varies, the description is ultimately determinative of the limits of EFH.
(3) Non-fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH -- (i) Identification of adverse effects. FMPs must identify activities that have potential adverse effects on EFH quantity and quality. Broad categories of activities may include, but are not limited to: dredging, fill, excavation, mining, impoundment, discharge, water diversions, thermal additions, runoff, placement of contaminated material, introduction of exotic species, and the conversion of aquatic habitat that may eliminate, diminish, or disrupt the functions of EFH. If known, an FMP should describe the EFH most likely to be affected by these activities. For each activity, the FMP should describe the known or potential impacts to EFH. These descriptions should explain the mechanisms or processes that cause expected deleterious effects and explain the known or potential impacts on the habitat function.
(ii) Cumulative impacts analysis. To the extent practicable, FMPs should identify and describe those activities that can influence habitat function on an ecosystem or watershed scale. This analysis should include a description of the ecosystem or watershed, the role of the managed species in the ecosystem or watershed, and the impact on the ecosystem or watershed of removal of the managed species. An assessment of the cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple threats, including natural adverse effects (such as storm damage or climate-based environmental shifts), and an ecological risk assessment of the managed species' habitat should also be included. For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
(iii) Mapping adverse impacts. The use of a GIS or other mapping system to analyze and present these data in an FMP is suggested for documenting impacts identified under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section and required when the analysis in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) is conducted. (iv) Conservation and enhancement. FMPs should include options to minimize the adverse effects identified pursuant to paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section and identify conservation and enhancement measures. Generally, non-water dependent actions should not be located in EFH. Actions not in EFH but that may result in significant adverse affects on EFH should be avoided if less environmentally harmful alternatives are available. If there is no alternative, these actions should be minimized. If avoidance and minimization will not adequately protect EFH, mitigation to conserve and enhance EFH will be recommended. These recommendations may include, but are not limited to: (A) Avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts on EFH. Environmentally sound engineering and management practices (e.g., seasonal restrictions, dredging methods, and disposal options) should be employed for all dredging and construction projects. Disposal of contaminated dredged material, sewage sludge, industrial waste or other materials in EFH should be avoided. Oil and gas exploration, production, transportation, and refining activities in EFH should be avoided, where possible, and minimized and mitigated if unavoidable.
(B) Restoration of riparian and shallow coastal areas. Restoration measures may include: Restoration of functions of riparian vegetation by reestablishing endemic trees or other appropriate native vegetation; restoration of natural bottom characteristics; removal of unsuitable material from areas affected by human activities; and replacement of suitable gravel or substrate to stream areas for spawning.
(C) Upland habitat restoration. This may include measures to control erosion, stabilize roads, upgrade culverts or remove dikes or levees to allow for fish passage, and the management of watersheds.
(D) Water quality. This includes use of best land management practices for ensuring compliance with water quality standards at state and Federal levels, improved treatment of sewage, and proper disposal of waste materials .
(E) Watershed analysis and subsequent watershed planning. This should be encouraged at the local and state levels. This effort should minimize depletion/diversion of freshwater flows into rivers and estuaries, destruction/degradation of wetlands, and restoration of native species, and should consider climate changes.
(F) Habitat creation. Under appropriate conditions, habitat creation may be considered as a means of replacing lost EFH. However, habitat creation at the expense of other naturally functioning systems must be justified (e.g., marsh creation with dredge material placed in shallow water habitat).
(4) Fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH. -- (i) Adverse effects from fishing may include physical disturbance of the substrate, and loss of and injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other components of the ecosystem.
(ii) FMPs must include management measures that minimize adverse effects on EFH from fishing, to the extent practicable, and identify conservation and enhancement measures. The FMP must contain an assessment of the potential adverse effects of all fishing gear types used in waters described as EFH. Included in this assessment should be consideration of the establishment of research closure areas and other measures to evaluate the impact of any fishing activity that physically alters EFH.
(iii) Councils must act to prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing, to the extent practicable, if there is evidence that a fishing practice is having a substantial adverse effect on EFH, based on the assessment conducted pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(ii).
(iv) In determining whether it is practicable to minimize an adverse effect from fishing, Councils should consider whether, and to what extent, the fishing activity is adversely impacting the marine ecosystem, including the fishery; the nature and extent of the adverse effect on EFH; and whether the benefit to the EFH achieved by minimizing the adverse effect justifies the cost to the fishery.
(5) Options for managing adverse effects from fishing. Fishing management options may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Fishing gear restrictions. These options may include, but are not limited to: limit seasonal and areal uses of trawl gear and bottom longlines; restrict net mesh sizes, traps, and entanglement gear to allow escapement of juveniles and non-target species; reduce fish and shellfish traps set near coral reefs and other hard bottoms; limit seasonal and areal uses of dredge gear in sensitive habitats; prohibit use of explosives and chemicals; restrict diving activities that have potential adverse effects; prohibit anchoring of fishing vessels in coral reef areas and other sensitive areas; and prohibit fishing activities that cause significant physical damage in EFH.
(ii) Time/area closures. These actions may include, but are not limited to: closing areas to all fishing or specific gear types during spawning, migration, foraging and nursery activities; and designating zones to limit effects of fishing practices on certain vulnerable or rare areas/species/life history stages.
(iii) Harvest limits. These actions may include, but are not limited to, limits on the take of species that provide structural habitat for other species assemblages or communities, and limits on the take of prey species.
(6) Prey species. Loss of prey is an adverse effect on a managed species and its EFH; therefore, FMPs should identify the major prey species for the species in the FMU and generally describe the location of prey species' habitat and the threats to that habitat. Adverse effects on prey species may result from fishing and non-fishing activities.
(7) Identification of vulnerable habitat. FMPs should identify vulnerable EFH. In determining whether a type of EFH is vulnerable, Councils should consider:
(i) The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation. (ii) Whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type.
(iii) The rarity of the habitat type.
(8) Research and information needs. Each FMP should contain recommendations, preferably in priority order, for research efforts that the Councils and NMFS view as necessary for carrying out their EFH management mandate. The need for additional research is to make available sufficient information to support a higher level of description and identification of EFH under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Additional research may also be necessary to identify and evaluate actual and potential adverse effects on EFH, including, but not limited to direct physical alteration; impaired habitat quality/functions; or indirect adverse effects such as sea level rise, global warming and climate shifts; and non-gear fishery impacts. The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically identifies the effects of fishing as a concern. The need for additional research on the effects of fishing gear on EFH should be included in this section of the FMP. If an adverse effect is identified and determined to be an impediment to reaching target long-term production levels, then the research needed to quantify and mitigate that effect should be identified in this section.
(9) Review and revision of EFH components of FMPs. Each Council and NMFS are expected to periodically review the EFH components of FMPs. Each EFH FMP amendment should include a provision requiring review and update of EFH information and preparation of a revised FMP amendment if new information becomes available. The schedule for this review should be based on an assessment of both the existing data and expectations when new data will become available. Such a review of information should be conducted as recommended by the Secretary, but at least once every five years.
(b) Optional components. An FMP may include a description and identification of, and contain management measures to protect, the habitat of species under the authority of the Council, but not contained in the FMU. However, such habitat may not be considered EFH.
(c) Development of EFH recommendations. After reviewing the best available scientific information, and in cooperation with the Councils, participants in the fishery, interstate commissions, Federal agencies, state agencies, and other interested parties, NMFS will develop written recommendations for the identification of EFH for each FMP. Prior to submitting a written EFH identification recommendation to a Council for an FMP, the draft recommendation will be made available for public review and at least one public meeting will be held. NMFS will work with the affected Council(s) to conduct this review in association with scheduled public Council meetings whenever possible. The review may be conducted at a meeting of the Council committee responsible for habitat issues or as a part of a full Council meeting. After receiving public comment, NMFS will revise its draft recommendations, as appropriate, and forward written recommendation and comments to the Council(s).
§600.815 Coordination and consultation on actions that may adversely affect EFH.
(a) General -- (1) Scope. One of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of the Nation's fisheries is the decline in the quantity and quality of marine, estuarine, and other riparian habitats. These procedures address the coordination and consultation requirements of sections 305(b)(1)(D) and (305(b)(2-4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The consultation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provide that: Federal agencies must consult with the Secretary on all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH; and the Secretary and the Councils provide recommendations to conserve EFH to Federal or state agencies. EFH conservation recommendations are measures recommended by the Councils or NMFS to a Federal or state agency to conserve EFH. Such recommendations may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH resulting from actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency. The coordination section requires the Secretary to coordinate with, and provide information to, other Federal agencies regarding EFH. These procedures for coordination and consultation allow all parties involved to understand and implement the consultation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(2) Coordination with other environmental reviews. Consultation and coordination under sections 305(b)(2), and 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act may be consolidated, where appropriate, with interagency coordination procedures required by other statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Power Act, to reduce duplication and improve efficiency. For example, a Federal agency preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) need not duplicate sections of that document in a separate EFH assessment, provided the EIS specifically and fully evaluates the effects of the proposed action on EFH, notes that it is intended to function as an EFH assessment, is provided to NMFS for review, and meets the other requirements for an EFH assessment contained in this section. NMFS comments on these documents will also function as its response required under section 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(3) Designation of Lead Agency. If more than one Federal or state agency is involved in an action (e.g., authorization is needed from more than one agency), the consultation requirements of sections 305(b)(2-4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act may be fulfilled through a lead agency. The lead agency must notify NMFS in writing that it is representing one or more additional agencies. (4) Conservation and enhancement of EFH. To further the conservation and enhancement of EFH, in accordance with section 305(b)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS will compile and make available to other Federal and state agencies information on the locations of EFH, including maps and/or narrative descriptions. Federal and state agencies empowered to authorize, fund, or undertake actions that could adversely affect EFH should contact NMFS and the Councils to become familiar with the designated EFH, and potential threats to EFH, as well as opportunities to promote the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.
(b) Council comments and recommendations to Federal and state agencies -- (1) Establishment of procedures. Each Council should establish procedures for reviewing activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by state or Federal agencies that may affect the habitat, including EFH, of a species under its authority. Each Council may identify activities of concern by: directing Council staff to track proposed actions; recommending that the Council's habitat committee identify activities of concern; entering into an agreement with NMFS to have the appropriate Regional Director notify the Council of activities that may adversely impact EFH; or by similar procedures. Federal and state actions often follow specific timetables which may not coincide with Council meetings. Councils should consider establishing abbreviated procedures for the development of Council recommendations.
(2) Early involvement. Councils should provide comments and recommendations on proposed state and Federal activities of interest as early as practicable in project planning to ensure thorough consideration of Council concerns by the action agency.
(3) Coordination with NMFS. The Secretary will develop agreements with each Council to facilitate sharing information on actions that may adversely affect EFH and in coordinating Council and NMFS responses to those actions.
(4) Anadromous fishery resources. For the purposes of the consultation requirement of section 305(b)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, an anadromous fishery resource under a Council's authority is an anadromous species where some life stage inhabits waters under the Council's authority. (c) Federal agency consultation -- (1) Interagency coordination. Both Federal and state agencies are encouraged to coordinate their actions with NMFS to facilitate the early identification of potential adverse effects on EFH. This will allow consideration of measures to conserve and enhance EFH early in the project design. The consultation requirements of sections 305(b)(2) and 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act differ for Federal and state agencies. Only Federal agencies have a mandatory statutory requirement to consult with NMFS regarding actions that may adversely affect EFH, pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is required under section 305(b)(4) to provide EFH recommendations regarding both state and Federal agency actions that could adversely affect EFH (see §600.810(a)(3) for further guidance on actions that could adversely affect EFH). Both Federal and state agencies are encouraged to develop agreements (or modify existing agreements) with NMFS to meet the consultation requirements in a manner to increase efficiency and to fully meet the requirements of the EFH provisions.
(2) Designation of non-Federal representative. A Federal agency may designate a non-Federal representative to conduct an abbreviated consultation or prepare an EFH assessment by giving written notice of such designation to NMFS. If a non-Federal representative is used, the Federal action agency remains ultimately responsible for compliance with sections 305(b)(2) and 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(3) General Concurrence -- (i) Purpose. The General Concurrence process identifies specific types of Federal actions that may adversely affect EFH, but for which no further consultation is generally required because NMFS has determined, through an analysis of that type of action, that it will likely to result in minimal adverse effects individually and cumulatively. General Concurrences may be national or regional in scope.
(ii) Criteria. (A) For Federal actions to qualify for General Concurrence, NMFS must determine, after consultation with the appropriate Council(s), that the actions meet all of the following criteria:
(1) The actions must be similar in nature and similar in their impact on EFH.
(2) The actions must not cause greater than minimal adverse effects on EFH when implemented individually.
(3) The actions must not cause greater than minimal cumulative adverse effects on EFH.
(B) Categories of Federal actions may also qualify for General Concurrence if they are modified by appropriate conditions that ensure the actions will meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this section. For example, NMFS may provide General Concurrence for additional actions contingent upon project size limitations, seasonal restrictions, or other conditions.
(iii) General Concurrence development. A Federal agency may request a General Concurrence for a category of its actions by providing NMFS with a written description of the nature and approximate number of the proposed actions, an analysis of the effects of the actions on EFH and associated species and their life history stages, including cumulative effects, and the Federal agency's conclusions regarding the magnitude of such effects. If NMFS agrees that the actions fit the criteria in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, NMFS, in consultation with the Council(s), will provide the Federal agency with a written statement of General Concurrence that further consultation is not required, and that preparation of EFH assessments for individual actions subject to the General Concurrence is not necessary. If NMFS determines that individual actions that fall within the General Concurrence would adversely affect EFH, NMFS will notify the Federal agency that abbreviated or expanded consultation is required. If NMFS identifies specific types of Federal actions that may meet the requirements for a General Concurrence, NMFS may initiate and complete a General Concurrence.
(iv) Notification and further consultation. NMFS may request notification for activities covered under a General Concurrence if NMFS concludes there are circumstances under which such activities could result in more than a minimal impact on EFH, or if it determines that there is not a process in place to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of activities covered under the General Concurrence. NMFS may require further consultation for these activities on an individual action. Each General Concurrence should establish specific procedures for further consultation.
(v) Public review. Prior to providing a Federal agency with a written statement of General Concurrence for a category of Federal actions, NMFS will provide an opportunity for public review through the appropriate Council(s), or other reasonable opportunity for public review.
(vi) Revisions to General Concurrences. NMFS will periodically review and revise its findings of General Concurrence, as appropriate.
(4) EFH Assessments -- (i) Preparation requirement. Federal agencies (or designated non-Federal representatives) must complete an EFH assessment for any action that may adversely affect EFH, except for those activities covered by a General Concurrence. Where appropriate, Federal agencies may combine requirements for environmental documents such as Endangered Species Act Biological Assessments pursuant to 50 CFR part 402 or National Environmental Policy Act documents and public notices pursuant to 40 CFR part 1500, with their EFH Assessment. This document must include all of the information required in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section and the requirements for other applicable environmental documents to be considered a complete assessment.
(ii) Mandatory contents. The assessment must contain:
(A) A description of the proposed action.
(B) An analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the proposed action on EFH and the managed and associated species, including their life history stages.
(C) The Federal agency's conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH.
(iii) Additional information. If appropriate, the assessment should also include:
(A) The results of an on-site inspection to evaluate the habitat and the site-specific effects of the project.
(B) The views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected.
(C) A review of pertinent literature and related information.
(D) An analysis of alternatives to the proposed action, including alternatives that could avoid or minimize adverse effects on EFH.
(E) Proposed mitigation.
(F) Other relevant information.
(iv) Incorporation by reference. The assessment may incorporate by reference a completed EFH Assessment prepared for a similar action, supplemented with any relevant new project specific information, provided the proposed action involves similar impacts to EFH in the same geographic area or a similar ecological setting. It may also incorporate by reference other relevant environmental assessment documents. These documents must be provided to NMFS.
(5) Abbreviated consultation procedures -- (i) Purpose. Abbreviated consultation allows NMFS to quickly determine whether, and to what degree, a Federal agency action may adversely affect EFH. The abbreviated consultation process is appropriate for Federal actions that would adversely affect EFH when, in NMFS' judgment, the adverse effect(s) of such actions could be alleviated through minor modifications to the proposed action.
(ii) Notification by agency. The Federal agency must notify NMFS and the appropriate Council in writing as early as practicable regarding proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. Notification will facilitate discussion of measures to conserve the habitat. Such early consultation must normally occur during pre-application planning for projects subject to a Federal permit or license, and during preliminary planning for projects to be funded or undertaken directly by a Federal agency.
(iii) Submittal of EFH Assessment. The Federal agency must submit a completed EFH assessment to NMFS for review in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section. If either the Federal agency or NMFS believes expanded consultation will be necessary, the Federal agency must initiate expanded consultation concurrently with submission of the EFH Assessment. Federal agencies will not have fulfilled their consultation requirement under paragraph (a)(1) of this section until timely notification and submittal of a complete EFH Assessment.
(iv) NMFS response. NMFS must respond in writing as to whether it concurs with the findings of the assessment. NMFS' response shall indicate whether expanded consultation is required. If additional consultation is not necessary, NMFS' response must include any necessary EFH conservation recommendations to be used by the Federal action agency. NMFS will send a copy of its response to the appropriate Council.
(v) Timing. The Federal action agency must submit its complete EFH Assessment to NMFS as soon as practicable, but at least 60 days prior to a final decision on the action, and NMFS must respond in writing within 30 days. If notification and the EFH Assessment are combined with other environmental reviews required by statute, then the statutory deadline for those reviews apply to the submittal and response. If NMFS and the Federal action agencies agree, a compressed schedule will be used in cases where regulatory approvals cannot accommodate 30 days for consultation, or to conduct consultation earlier in the planning cycle for proposed actions with lengthy approval processes.
(6) Expanded consultation procedures -- (i) Purpose. Expanded consultation is appropriate for Federal actions that would result in substantial adverse effects to EFH and/or require more detailed analysis to enable NMFS to develop EFH conservation recommendations.
(ii) Initiation. Expanded consultation begins when NMFS receives a written request from a Federal action agency to initiate expanded consultation. The Federal action agency's written request must include a completed EFH Assessment in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section. Because expanded consultation is required for activities that may potentially have substantial adverse impacts on EFH, Federal action agencies are encouraged to provide the additional information identified under paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section. Subject to NMFS's approval, any request for expanded consultation may encompass a number of similar individual actions within a given geographic area.
(iii) NMFS response. NMFS will:
(A) Review the EFH Assessment, any additional information furnished by the Federal agency, and other relevant information.
(B) Conduct a site visit, if appropriate, to assess the quality of the habitat and to clarify the impacts of the Federal agency action.
(C) Evaluate the effects of the action on EFH, including cumulative effects.
(D) Coordinate its review of the proposed action with the appropriate Council.
(E) Formulate EFH conservation recommendations and provide the recommendations to the Federal action agency and the appropriate Council.
(iv) Timing. The Federal action agency must submit its complete EFH Assessment to NMFS as soon as practicable, but at least 120 days prior to a final decision on the action, and NMFS must conclude expanded consultation within 90 days of submittal of a complete Assessment unless extended by NMFS with notification to the Federal action agency. If notification and the EFH Assessment are combined with other statutorily required environmental reviews, then the statutory deadlines for those reviews apply to the submittal and response. NMFS and Federal action agencies may agree to use a compressed schedule in cases where regulatory approvals cannot accommodate a 60 day consultation period.
(v) Best scientific information. The Federal action agency must provide NMFS with the best scientific information available, or reasonably accessible during the consultation, regarding the effects of the proposed action on EFH.
(vi) Extension of consultation. If NMFS determines that additional data or analysis would provide better information for development of EFH conservation recommendations, NMFS may request additional time for its expanded consultation. If NMFS and the Federal action agency agree to an extension, the Federal action agency must provide the additional information to NMFS, to the extent practicable. If NMFS and the Federal action agency do not agree to extend consultation, NMFS must provide EFH conservation recommendations to the Federal action agency using the best scientific data available to NMFS.
(7) Responsibilities of Federal action agency following receipt of EFH conservation recommendations -- (i) Federal action agency response. Within 30 days after receiving an EFH conservation recommendation (or at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action, if a decision by the Federal agency is required in less than 30 days), the Federal action agency must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS and the appropriate Council. The response must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the recommendations of NMFS, the Federal action agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects.
(ii) Dispute resolution. After receiving a Federal action agency response that is inconsistent with the recommendations of NMFS, the Assistant Administrator may request a meeting with the head of the Federal action agency, as well as any other agencies involved, to discuss the proposed action and opportunities for resolving any disagreements. Memoranda of agreement with Federal action agencies will be sought to further define such dispute resolution processes.
(8) Supplemental consultation. A Federal action agency must resume consultation with NMFS following either abbreviated or expanded consultation if the agency substantially revises its plans for the action in a manner that may adversely affect EFH or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations. Additionally, where Federal oversight, involvement, or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law, the Federal action agency must resume consultation if new EFH is designated that may be adversely affected by the agency's exercise of its authority.
(d) NMFS recommendations to state agencies -- (1) Establishment of Procedures. Each Region should establish procedures for identifying actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by state agencies that may adversely affect EFH, and for identifying the most appropriate method for providing EFH conservation recommendations to the state agency.
(2) Coordination with Federal consultation procedures. When an activity that may adversely affect EFH requires authorization or funding by both Federal and state agencies, NMFS will provide the appropriate state agencies with copies of EFH conservation recommendations developed as part of the Federal consultation procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.
[FR Doc. 97-10540 Filed 4-22-97; 8:45 am]APPENDIX D
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sea Scallops (New England Fishery Management Council)
2. American Lobster Fishery Management Plan (New England Fishery Management Council)
3. Fishery Management Plan for the Northeast Multi-species Fishery (New England Fishery Management Council)
4. Atlantic Salmon Fishery Management Plan (New England Fishery Management Council)
5. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
6. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
7. Fishery Management Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
8. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
9. Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
10. Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery Management Plan (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
11. Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
12. Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council)
13. Fishery Management Plan for the Golden Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council).
14. Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; joint with South Atlantic Council)
15. Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; joint with South Atlantic Council)
16. Fishery Management Plan for Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council)
17. Fishery Management Plan for the Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council)
18. Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council)
19. Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council)
20. Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council)
21. Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Caribbean Fishery Management Council)
22. Fishery Management Plan for the Shallow Water - Reeffish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Caribbean Fishery Management Council)
23. Fishery Management Plan for Corals and Reef Associated Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Caribbean Fishery Management Council)
24. Fishery Management Plan for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands (Caribbean Fishery Management Council)
25. Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Pacific Fishery Management Council)
26. Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan (Pacific Fishery Management Council)
27. Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California (Pacific Fishery Management Council)
28. Fishery Management Plan for Crustaceans Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Fishery Management Council)
29. Fishery Management Plan for the Precious Corals Fishery of the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Fishery Management Council)
30. Fishery Management Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Fishery Management Council)
31. Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Fishery Management Council)
32. Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska (North Pacific Fishery Management Council)
33. Fishery Management Plan for the High Seas Salmon Fishery off the Coast of Alaska East of 175 Degrees East Longitude (North Pacific Fishery Management Council)
34. Fishery Management Plan for the Ground fish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (North Pacific Fishery Management Council)
35. Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Management Plan (North Pacific Fishery Management Council)
36. Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (North Pacific Fishery Management Council)
37. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Swordfish (Secretarial Fishery Management Plan)
38. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfishes (Secretarial Fishery Management Plan)
39. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sharks (Secretarial Fishery Management Plan)