FCMA - Essential Fish Habitat
The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) (P.L. 104-297
) requires that each regional fishery management
council identify the habitats used by all the life history stages of their managed
species. The habitats that are necessary to the species for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH). These
habitats must be described in narratives and identified geographically in the fishery
management plans (FMP). In addition, FMPs must identify ways to minimize the
potential adverse impacts caused by fishing and non-fishing activities, to the extent
practicable.
Consultations
According to the SFA, each Federal Agency must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken by that Agency that
may adversely affect any EFH. According to the final rule for the provisions (50 CFR
Part 600), NMFS will comment on the consultation and the consulting Agency then has 30
days to respond. Any conservation recommendations provided by NMFS to the consulting
agency are non-binding. If the consulting agency chooses not to accept some or all
of the conservation recommendations, it must provide an explanation to NMFS.
Consultations can be for a category of actions or for specific proposals. The
level of analysis and type of consultation is commensurate with the degree of impact.
Federal Agencies must consult on activities that may adversely affect EFH in order
to comply with the legislative mandate. EFH consultation combined with other
environmental reviews must include a description of the proposed action; an analysis of
the effects, including cumulative effects, of the proposed action on EFH, the managed
species and their effected life stages and their prey species and proposed mitigation, if
applicable.
The EFH regulations at 50 CFR
600.920(f) enable NMFS to make a finding that an existing consultation or
environmental review procedure can be used to satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act
consultation requirements. In March 2002, MMS received a NMFS Letter of Finding that
allows MMS to choose to use the NEPA process by submitting to NMFS programmatic, lease
sale, or project-specific environmental impact statements (EIS’s) or environmental
assessments (EA’s), as appropriate, in lieu of a stand alone EFH assessment. There
are four types of consultations:
Programmatic Consultation - Regional MMS Offices submit a lease sale
environmental impact statement (EIS) to NMFS and request a review of the
“program” proposed within the lease sale EIS. The NMFS makes conservation
recommendations for the proposed lease sale area. If the Region accepts those
recommendations, then no further consultation is required.
General Concurrence - MMS submits to NMFS an EIS or EA containing a
description of the nature of selected activities (on a national or regional level), the
number of activities, and our analysis of the impacts of those activities on EFH.
The NMFS reviews and provides a written statement of concurrence (if they concur) that the
actions may cause only minimal adverse effects. NMFS is not required to make any
conservation recommendations. No further consultation is required and we make
available to NMFS, on an annual basis, information to certify the number of activities and
that there is no change in effects. This is a public review process MMS would
reinitiate every 5 years.
Abbreviated Consultation -Regional MMS Offices submit an EIS
containing an EFH assessment to NMFS on project-specific actions that would adversely
affect EFH. NMFS reviews the EFH assessment and makes conservation
recommendations. MMS responds in writing to their recommendations.
Expanded Consultation - Regional MMS Offices submit an EIS containing
an EFH assessment to NMFS on project-specific actions that would substantially adversely
affect EFH. NMFS reviews the EFH assessment and makes conservation recommendations.
MMS responds in writing to their recommendations.
For more information, contact Jill
Lewandowski.
