Comment H: Two commenters recommended that the final rule provide clarification on how NMFS and the Councils will coordinate in developing recommendations on Federal and state actions to ensure that agencies are not forced to choose between NMFS and Council recommendations. NMFS cannot require Councils to designate HAPCs. The changes are not substantive and are intended to clarify this portion of the rule. Response A: The term “EFH Conservation Recommendations” in the final rule refers to recommendations provided by NMFS to a Federal or state agency pursuant to section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Comments on Coordination for the Conservation and Enhancement of EFH, 24. Not all activities result in adverse effects on EFH. Response B: Congress indicated through the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that existing environmental reviews are not adequate for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the United States. The third sentence is unnecessary and redundant with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Response I: NMFS has no authority to prevent or restrict project approvals by other agencies. Comment F: One commenter expressed a need for greater clarification regarding the EFH and ESA consultation requirements and recommended a single point of contact for both programs. Diese EFH darf maxi-mal 0,60 m über der Oberkante der unmittelbar an das Baugrundstück grenzenden fertigen Straßendecke (Fahrbahnachse der Planstraße) liegen. Federal agencies may have scientific information about their actions that is not readily available to NMFS, so providing this information will help to make consultations efficient. Response: NMFS' recommendations to Councils under § 600.815(c) may take one of two forms: suggestions for the EFH components of an FMP that precede a Council's development of a draft EFH document, or a technical and policy review of a draft EFH document prepared by a Council. If consultation is not practicable before taking an emergency action, Federal agencies may consult after-the-fact and NMFS may provide EFH Conservation Recommendations for measures to offset any unavoidable adverse effects to EFH. In § 600.815, paragraph (a), in the former paragraph (2)(ii)(B) (now numbered (1)(iv)(C)), “may” replaces “should” so that the rule permits, but no longer strongly recommends, considering all habitats currently used by a species to be essential, as well as certain historic habitats, if a species is overfished and habitat factors may be contributing to the species being identified as overfished. Section 305(b)(4)(B) requires Federal agencies to respond in writing to such comments. 2.2Höhe baulicher Anlagen Die festgesetzten maximalen Trauf- und Firsthöhen (TH u. FH) dürfen nicht überschritten werden. Comment D: Several non-fishing industry groups commented that NMFS did not make necessary information on the consultation process available to commenters when the comment period for the interim final rule was reopened in November 1999. Fish habitat has received limited consideration in the assessment of environmental impacts for activities authorized or supported by Federal agencies. Comment B: One commenter requested clarification regarding the types of entities that a Federal agency may designate as a non-Federal representative for EFH consultation purposes, and expressed concern about the potential resource expenditures for non-Federal representatives to perform these duties. Response C: NMFS does not agree that the regulations should omit the reference to undisturbed ecosystems. The title of the paragraph omits “Identification of” to reduce wordiness. The commenter expressed concern that there is no clear threshold of significance or likelihood of adverse effect on EFH to trigger consultation or recommendations from NMFS or a Council. The level of detail in an EFH Assessment should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the potential adverse effects of the action. Comment C: One state commenter asked for clarification on how the Councils will evaluate the effectiveness of each recommended mitigation measure (i.e., conservation and enhancement option). Comments Asking for Additional Opportunity to Comment on the Rule or to be Involved in the Designation of EFH, 3. Section 600.930 includes new language describing the statutory authority for Council comments and recommendations to Federal and state agencies. In § 600.920, paragraph (j) is a new section on programmatic consultation. 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. Ein beliebiger Punkt im Raum mit der Bezeichnung P(i) und den Koordinaten X(i), Y(i), Z(i) wird durch Senkrechtprojektion auf die Nullebene im Punkt P’(i) der Nullebene mit den Koordinaten X(i) und Y(i) abgebildet. In a number of places throughout the final rule, paragraphs have been renumbered and references to paragraphs and sections have been changed to reflect the renumbering. However, in the absence of a finding, if a Federal agency fails to consult under section 305(b)(2) of the Act, NMFS may provide EFH Conservation Recommendations under section 305(b)(4) either through another environmental review process or separately. The same agency asked whether NMFS and the Councils will provide recommendations by category of activity or adverse impact (e.g., dredging or filling) or on a case-by-case basis. In § 600.920, paragraph (g)(4) is newly titled as “Further consultation” rather than “Notification and further consultation.” “Request” replaces “require” to more accurately reflect NMFS' role in asking for further consultation for actions covered under a General Concurrence. The sentence regarding Level 2 through 4 information appears in a different place in the paragraph to improve organization, and instead of saying the information should be used “to identify the habitats valued most highly within the geographic range of the species” the sentence includes new language to identify “habitats supporting the highest relative abundance; growth, reproduction, or survival rates; and/or production rates within the geographic range of a species.” In the same paragraph “distribution” replaces “presence/absence” and the former “identify those habitat areas most commonly used” reads “identify EFH as those habitat areas most commonly used” because the purpose of the analysis is to identify EFH, if sufficient information is available. (4) Non-fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH. NMFS has no authority to regulate activities other than fishing that may adversely affect EFH or HAPCs, so NMFS cannot impose protective measures for HAPCs through the consultation process. Comment E: Several conservation groups recommended that each fishing activity be prohibited until it can be demonstrated that the activity does not adversely affect EFH. In § 600.815, the former paragraph (a)(10) is now numbered (a)(9). For Federal actions, EFH Conservation Recommendations will be provided to Federal agencies as part of EFH consultations conducted pursuant to § 600.920. Since distribution data are lacking for a number of managed species, especially in Alaska, the final rule clarifies that habitat use for a given species or life stage may be inferred, if appropriate, based on information on a similar species or another life stage. Two of these commenters asked for clarification of the standard that General Concurrences may be used for actions that would not cause greater than minimal adverse effects on EFH individually and cumulatively. 11/30/2020, 296 EFH may refer to: * Essential Fish Habitat, a term in habitat conservation * Evangelische Fachhochschule, a type of university of applied sciences in Germany. This document has been published in the Federal Register. Die EFH kann von der BH abweichen. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP addresses this requirement by providing guidance for minimizing salmon bycatch and bycatch mortality, and by establishing salmon bycatch reporting specifications. Federal agencies must consult with NMFS regarding actions that may adversely affect EFH and must provide detailed written responses to NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations. Council action to protect the habitats of managed or non-managed species is limited to protecting habitats from fishing activities. If appropriate, the assessment should also include: (i) The results of an on-site inspection to evaluate the habitat and the site-specific effects of the project. Councils may designate HAPCs based on one or more of the four specified considerations, because any one of the considerations may provide sufficient basis for distinguishing a subset of EFH from the remainder of EFH.