Begriff EFH A hier dann erdgeschoßfußbodenhöhe also OK Fertigfußboden. If further changes to the EFH regulations are warranted, NMFS will propose changes through an appropriate public process. At this level, only distribution data are available to describe the geographic range of a species (or life stage). Comment C: Two commenters requested that NMFS suspend the designation of EFH for Pacific salmon until after final revisions to the EFH regulations are made, since the EFH provisions of the Pacific salmon FMP had not been completed at the time NMFS reopened the comment period on the interim final rule. The level of detail in an EFH Assessment should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the potential adverse effects of the action. Section 600.920 adds a new paragraph (e)(2), titled “Level of detail,” to explain that the extent of information in an EFH Assessment should be based on the complexity and magnitude of the adverse affects of the action. Response A: NMFS will continue to work closely with Federal agencies when developing agency-specific procedures for EFH consultation, such as findings regarding the use of existing environmental review processes to handle EFH consultations. The interim final rule took effect on January 20, 1998. (A) The following approach should be used to organize the information necessary to describe and identify EFH. NMFS' recommendations are non-binding. developer tools pages. Comment G: One commenter requested that NMFS reinsert the words “the marine ecosystem” in place of “EFH” in the following passage from § 600.815(a)(3)(iv) of the interim final rule: “Councils should consider whether, and to what extent, the fishing activity is adversely impacting EFH...” The commenter stated that the language used in the proposed rule was a more accurate reflection of the spirit of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Councils should make this determination on a case-by-case basis. NMFS will make available descriptions and maps of EFH to Start Printed Page 2345promote EFH conservation and enhancement. Others expressed concern that the word “identifiable” is inappropriate since this language does not appear in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and may still raise the threshold for action above that set by the Act. The EFH regulations pertain to all federally managed species without distinguishing between commercial and recreational fisheries. Based on the comments received, as well as NMFS' experience implementing the interim final rule, NMFS identified a number of improvements that would clarify and simplify the regulations. Comment B: One commenter recommended that NMFS develop an incentives program or funding mechanism to encourage data collection to support identifying EFH with Level 3 or 4 data, as described in the interim final rule. Comments on the Authority to Issue Regulations Regarding EFH Coordination, Consultation, and Recommendations, 23. FMPs must describe and identify EFH in text that clearly states the habitats or habitat types determined to be EFH for each life stage of the managed species. Comment D: Several commenters requested more information about the process for further review of Federal action agency decisions that are inconsistent with NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations. Comments on the Threshold That Requires Councils to Minimize Adverse Effects of Fishing on EFH, 15. NMFS decided to issue the regulations as an interim final rule in 1997 for two reasons. (a) Establishment of procedures. In § 600.920, paragraph (e)(4)(iv) omits “particularly when an action is non-water dependent.”, In § 600.920, former paragraph (e) is now paragraph (f) and the heading as been changed from “Use of existing consultation/environmental review procedures” to “Use of existing environmental review procedures.”. Response A: The rule provides guidance to the Councils to evaluate all available information and use specified criteria to identify EFH. In determining whether management measures are practicable, Councils are not required to perform a formal cost/benefit analysis. EFH can only be designated in aquatic areas. NMFS may request notification for actions covered under a General Concurrence if NMFS concludes there are circumstances under which such actions could result in more than a minimal impact on EFH, or if it determines that there is no process in place to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of actions covered Start Printed Page 2382under the General Concurrence. The words “may be” replace “is” because loss of prey does not always constitute an adverse effect on EFH and managed species. References to state actions is appropriate in this case since sections 305(b)(3) and (4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act include provisions for NMFS and Councils to provide recommendations to state agencies on actions that could harm EFH. The final rule also clarifies that each FMP must contain an evaluation of the potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH designated under the FMP, including effects of each fishing activity regulated under the FMP or other Federal FMPs. Es wäre besser, die untere Bezugshöhe als solche zu definieren, unabhängig von der gewählten/zulässigen EFH. One specifically requested clarification regarding the need for consultation on Federal reviews of actions. The final rule splits the second sentence into two sentences and restructures the language to improve clarity and remove redundancy. Therefore, the final rule states that areas described as EFH “will normally” (rather than “will always”) be greater than or equal to aquatic areas that have been identified as critical habitat. Healthy ecosystem means an ecosystem where ecological productive capacity is maintained, diversity of the flora and fauna is preserved, and the ecosystem retains the ability to regulate itself. Comment B: One commenter wanted NMFS to clarify that habitat creation should be reserved for mitigating habitat losses or restoring native fish populations and should not alter natural habitats. NMFS will not recommend that state or Federal agencies take actions beyond their statutory authority. Response H: National standard 2 states that conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. With regard to the preparation of EFH Assessments, some commenters said that the Magnuson-Stevens Act gives NMFS no authority to require other agencies to provide specific information or otherwise prescribe how they should consult with NMFS regarding EFH. Another commenter asked Start Printed Page 2348for an explanation of the terms “species richness” and “resilience” within the definition of “healthy ecosystem.”. offers a preview of documents scheduled to appear in the next day's These commenters also asked NMFS to reopen the comment period on the rule again after the Pacific salmon EFH designations are in effect for a period of time. The final rule retains language in § 600.815(a) allowing the inclusion of such habitats as EFH, provided that the habitats are necessary to support rebuilding the fishery and that restoration is technologically and economically feasible. This commenter stated that the Magnuson-Stevens Act only authorizes designation of existing habitat as EFH and does not provide the authority to identify EFH for degraded or inaccessible habitat. Federal agencies must consult with NMFS regarding actions that may adversely affect EFH and must provide detailed written responses to NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations. The language addresses non-Magnuson-Stevens Act fishing directly, whereas the interim final rule more indirectly stated in § 600.815(a)(3)(ii) that FMPs must assess all fishing equipment types used in EFH. Section 600.815(a)(1)(ii)(B) states, “Councils should obtain information to describe and identify EFH from the best available sources, including peer-reviewed literature, unpublished scientific reports, data files of government resource agencies, fisheries landing reports, and other sources of information.” The final rule further clarifies that Councils should consider different types of information according to its scientific rigor. NMFS has developed over 40 such findings with Federal agencies to date. A few commenters thought the regulations should call for identifying all areas as EFH until proven otherwise. Programmatic consultation provides a means for NMFS and a Federal agency to consult regarding a potentially large number of individual actions that may adversely affect EFH. Section 600.920, paragraph (i)(2), is newly titled “Notification by agency and submittal of EFH Assessment” rather than “Initiation.” This paragraph omits “completed” to reduce wordiness. (3) Non-Magnuson-Stevens Act fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH. Response E: NMFS reviewed the EFH regulations carefully to ensure that word usage reflected the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Comment C: One commenter said that NMFS should delete from § 600.805(b) the language saying that a Council may describe, identify, and protect the habitat of species not in a fishery management unit, but such habitat may not be considered EFH. When Federal agencies choose this approach to EFH consultation, the regulations require a finding by NMFS that the selected process provides specific EFH-related information in a timely way. Regarding NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations to state agencies, the rule continues to state that NMFS will use existing coordination procedures or establish new procedures to identify state actions that may adversely affect EFH and to determine the most appropriate method for providing EFH Conservation Recommendations to state agencies. This rulemaking is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. § 22 BauNVO) unterschritten werden. NMFS responded to the cited comments in the preamble to the interim final rule at 62 FR 66539-66540 and 66543. Comments Regarding Participation in the Consultation Process, 28. The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal (g) General Concurrence—(1) Purpose. Response C: Bull trout are not managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the commenter's concerns are unrelated to the EFH regulations. For any Federal action that may adversely affect EFH, Federal agencies must provide NMFS with a written assessment of the effects of that action on EFH. Also, “Federal agency” or “agency” replaces “Federal action agency” or “action agency” in many places throughout the rule. FMPs should outline the procedures the Council will follow to review and update EFH information. The final rule requires that FMPs explain the reasons for Councils' conclusions regarding the past and/or new actions that minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. Several commenters took the opposite view and wanted the rule to encourage identifying artificial reefs, jetties, and shipwrecks as EFH. (6) Revisions. If an EFH Assessment is contained in another document, it must include all of the information required in paragraph (e)(3) of this section and be clearly identified as an EFH Assessment. Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Juni 2020 um 11:17 Uhr bearbeitet. EFH and the habitat components of the ESA are authorized under different legislative mandates and have unique objectives. The paragraph is restructured to state more succinctly that NMFS will provide EFH Conservation Recommendations, if appropriate. Councils should identify EFH that is especially important ecologically or particularly vulnerable to degradation as “habitat areas of particular concern” (HAPC) to help provide additional focus for conservation efforts. Providing a comment period on EFH Conservation Recommendations could result in delays for Federal and state agencies that may be relying on NMFS' input to decide on appropriate measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects to EFH. Sections 305(b)(3) and (4) direct the Secretary and the Councils to provide comments and EFH Conservation Recommendations to Federal or state agencies on actions that affect EFH. Die Höhe ±0 ist dabei regelmäßig identisch mit der Höhe des Verkehrsweges oder Bauwerks in der Achse, die im Zuge der rechnerischen Achsfestlegung an jeder beliebigen Stelle der Achse im übergeordneten Höhensystem berechenbar ist. In § 600.925, paragraph (b) omits the redundant statement that the recommendations fulfill the requirements of section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For example, a rancher from Idaho formerly served as a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. NMFS disagrees that a definition of “rarity” in the rule is needed, but suggests that Councils consider as rare those habitats that are less common than other habitats in a particular geographic area. Zusätzlich wurde No further consultation is generally required for actions that fall within a General Concurrence. Comment A: Some commenters expressed concern that the EFH regulations imply that fishing is the major, if not only, cause of habitat degradation. NMFS disagrees with the comments that loss of prey is beyond the appropriate scope of adverse effects to EFH. Response C: NMFS completed a revised EA that addresses how the final rule could affect various parties, including Federal agencies. The EA and related documents are also available via the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat. Response B: NMFS agrees that it might not always be appropriate to identify as EFH all current habitats as well as certain historic habitats. While agencies may incorporate an EFH Assessment into documents prepared under another environmental review process, the assessment must still include all of the required information specified in the rule, which will ensure specific consideration of potential impacts to EFH. Response A: NMFS is not modifying its interpretation of the statutory definition of EFH in the final rule. (C) If a species is overfished and habitat loss or degradation may be contributing to the species being identified as overfished, all habitats currently used by the species may be considered essential in addition to certain historic habitats that are necessary to support rebuilding the fishery and for which restoration is technologically and economically feasible. FMPs should identify specific types or areas of habitat within EFH as habitat areas of particular concern based on one or more of the following considerations: (i) The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat. However, all information should be evaluated with regard to reliability, so the final rule clarifies that Councils should consider different types of information according to its scientific rigor. The final rule omits the phrase “and associated species and their life history stages,” since this is implicit in an evaluation of effects to EFH. If NMFS and the Federal agency agree to an extension, the Federal agency should provide the additional information to NMFS, to the extent practicable. EFH consultations result in non-binding conservation recommendations. Applying this standard to the identification of EFH is appropriate and necessary to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Rather, Councils should decide which administrative approach is most appropriate to use to meet the requirements of the EFH provisions. The final rule omits the words “including an update of the equipment assessment originally conducted pursuant to paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section” to eliminate redundancy. Comment E: One non-fishing industry trade association commented that in many cases there are statutory constraints on Federal delegations of authority to states that may prevent the delegating agency from addressing other concerns, such as EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with NMFS Conservation Recommendations, the Federal 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 action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects. Response I: General Concurrences are a means of obviating the need for Federal agencies to consult with NMFS individually on specified types of actions that would cause no more than minimal adverse effects on EFH. In other cases nationwide, NMFS considered developing General Concurrences but deferred action because the time-consuming process of soliciting Council and public input led to potential General Concurrences being eclipsed by other EFH priorities. Comment K: One Council stated that all mid-Atlantic estuaries should be considered as HAPCs because they function as spawning grounds and/or nursery areas for many managed species. Comment: One commenter said that in NMFS' recommendations to Councils regarding the EFH components of FMPs, NMFS should include a description of the extent and quality of the best available scientific information. Additional guidance linking EFH to habitat function, beyond the clarification mentioned above, is not necessary at this time because the rule already explains how to use Level 3 and 4 information to identify habitats with the highest ecological function for managed species. Response F: NOAA is implementing a one-stop-shopping approach to coordinate EFH, ESA, and other consultative requirements in an efficient and effective manner. NMFS cannot require Councils to designate HAPCs. In § 600.920, paragraph (e) discusses EFH Assessments. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links documents in the last year, by the Federal Communications Commission Abgeschickt von Dirk Baumeister am 18 Juni, 2007 um 17:40:42. Response C: NMFS does not have the authority to require owners of structures designated as EFH to maintain them as EFH. Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation for any federal action that may adversely affect EFH and does not distinguish between water and non-water dependent activities. These changes should make the regulations easier to use and should promote better understanding of how to implement the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Response F: NMFS disagrees. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP describe and identify EFH, and it is not appropriate to extend this requirement to species not managed under an FMP. Comment C: One organization commented that the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH in terms of life history characteristics for managed species, whereas the interim final rule interprets EFH in terms of productivity. Also, the paragraph omits “with Federal action agencies” to reduce wordiness. Section 2(b) of the Act states that one of Congress' purposes was “to promote the protection of essential fish habitat in the review of projects conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat.” Therefore, an important purpose of EFH consultations is to provide information to action agencies to ensure consideration of potential impacts to EFH. The final rule omits the unnecessary reference to other statutes in describing the use of existing coordination procedures. Comment A: One commenter representing waterfowl management efforts said that the importance of long-term sustainability of coastal wetlands habitat is overshadowed by the narrow focus of the EFH regulations on achieving optimal yield from a fishery. However, specific wetlands management activities may not always advance both these objectives, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Others said Start Printed Page 2360that it is inappropriate for NMFS to suggest time frames that Federal agencies should follow as part of the EFH consultation process. The Federal agency, however, might in some cases request information from the applicant for a Federal permit, license, or grant when the agency is completing an EFH Assessment. In § 600.920, paragraph (f) is now paragraph (g). Response B: The EFH regulations require Councils to evaluate the potential adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH so that Councils will be informed when making decisions regarding minimization of adverse effects to EFH from fishing. documents in the last year, 43 To reduce confusion about what habitats generally should be considered essential, the final rule omits language from the interim final rule saying that “habitats of intermediate or low value may also be essential, depending on the health of the fish population” because this concept is covered elsewhere in the rule. Comment F: One port authority stated that the EFH designations should undergo a formal rulemaking process. The President of the United States communicates information on holidays, commemorations, special observances, trade, and policy through Proclamations. One commenter asked whether the recommendations NMFS will make on Federal or state actions that would adversely affect EFH are limited to the recommendations contained in FMPs for EFH conservation and enhancement. Additionally, the evaluation should consider the establishment of research closure areas or other measures to evaluate the impacts of fishing activities on EFH. In the preamble to the interim final rule at 62 FR 66540, NMFS acknowledged that many industries take certain actions specifically to improve fish habitat even if other activities conducted by the industry may adversely affect fish habitat. The commenter said that such actions therefore should not be subject to EFH consultation. NMFS held 15 public meetings, briefings, and workshops across the nation during the public comment period on the Framework and issued a proposed rule on April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19723). Procedures for Council involvement in higher level review are already discussed in the regulations, and may be elaborated upon if appropriate in any written procedures NMFS might develop to refine the process in the future. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Councils to describe and identify EFH based on the biological requirements of all life stages of the managed species, with no limitations placed on the geographic location of EFH. The final rule adds a reference to paragraph (j) of this section to refer to the procedures for programmatic consultation. NMFS and Federal agencies may agree to use a compressed schedule in cases where regulatory approvals or emergency situations cannot accommodate 60 days for consultation, or to conduct consultation earlier in the planning cycle for actions with lengthy approval processes. The final rule asks the Councils to set priority research needs to improve upon the description and identification of EFH, the identification of threats to EFH from fishing and non-fishing activities, and the development of conservation and enhancement recommendations. Federal agencies retain the discretion to make their own determinations as to what actions may fall within NMFS' definition of “adverse effect.”, Comment C: One commenter said that the definition of “healthy ecosystem” should not say that such areas should be similar to undisturbed ecosystems, because hardly any ecosystem could be characterized as pristine or entirely undisturbed. rechtwinklig zur Gebäudehauptrichtung festgelegt. If a Federal agency nevertheless fails to consult properly for actions that would adversely affect EFH, NMFS will provide EFH Conservation Recommendations based on the information available. The EFH regulations provide guidance on meeting the EFH requirements of the Act, and failure to follow the guidance may lead to disapproval or partial approval of an FMP or amendment. Existing FMP EFH provisions were approved (or in some cases partially approved) by the Secretary pursuant to the interim final rule. The requirement in Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for Councils to recommend conservation and enhancement measures for non-fishing activities does not mention practicability, and it is the responsibility of the agencies with relevant jurisdiction to determine whether it is practicable to implement Council recommendations. 601 et seq.). The term “species richness” refers to biodiversity. Where Councils have more information on the ecological importance or vulnerability of portions of EFH, they may identify those areas as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. on (h) Abbreviated consultation procedures—(1) Purpose and criteria. Comment H: One commenter recommended that the EFH regulations be revised to require Councils to use information sources that meet a high scientific standard to designate HAPCs.