**Essential Fish Habitat:**

**A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate**

**for Federal Agencies**

**[U.S. Caribbean]{.underline}**

![](media/image1.png){width="1.5in" height="1.2444444444444445in"}

***National Marine Fisheries Service***

***Habitat Conservation Division***

***Southeast Regional Office***

***263 13^th^ Avenue South***

***St. Petersburg, FL 33701***

***727/824-5317***

***March 2006***

***Executive Summary***

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) set forth a new mandate for NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management
councils (FMC), and other federal agencies to identify and protect
important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The essential fish habitat
(EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act support one of the nation's
overall marine resource management goals - maintaining sustainable
fisheries. Critical to achieving this goal is the maintenance of
suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity. The Caribbean FMC,
with assistance from NMFS, has delineated EFH for federally managed
species within the U.S. Caribbean. As new FMPs are developed, EFH for
newly managed species will be defined as well. Federal action agencies
which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely affect
EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential impacts of
their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to NMFS or FMC
recommendations. In addition, NMFS and the FMCs may comment on and make
recommendations to any state agency on their activities that may affect
EFH. Measures recommended by NMFS or an FMC to protect EFH are advisory,
not proscriptive.

On December 19, 1997, an interim final rule was published in the Federal
Register. That rule specified procedures for implementation of the EFH
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A final rule subsequently was
published on January 17, 2002 (67 FR 2343). The final rule, which
contains two subparts, addresses requirements for fishery management
plan (FMP) amendment, and details the coordination, consultation, and
recommendation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Within the area encompassed by the NMFS Southeast Region, EFH has been
identified for hundreds of marine species covered by 20 FMPs, under the
auspices of the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, or Caribbean FMC or the
NMFS. The generic FMP amendment delineating EFH for species managed by
the Caribbean FMC was completed in early 1999 and subsequently updated
and revised in late 2005. In addition, EFH for highly migratory pelagic
species managed by the NMFS has been identified and includes various
coastal and offshore waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Wherever possible, NMFS intends to use existing interagency coordination
processes as the mechanism to accomplish EFH consultations for federal
agency actions that may adversely affect EFH. Provided certain
regulatory specifications are met, EFH consultations will be
incorporated into interagency procedures established under the National
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, or other applicable statutes. If existing
processes cannot adequately address EFH consultation requirements,
appropriate new procedures could be developed in cooperation with the
NMFS. Programmatic consultations may be implemented or General
Concurrences may be developed when program or project impacts are
individually and cumulatively minimal in nature. Moreover, NMFS will
work closely with federal agencies on programs requiring emergency,
expanded, or abbreviated individual project consultations.

An effective, interagency EFH consultation process is essential to
ensure that federal actions are consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act
resource management goals. The NMFS will strive to work with action
agencies to foster an understanding of EFH consultation requirements and
identify the most efficient interagency mechanisms to fulfill agency
responsibilities.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT:

A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies

**Introduction**

This document has been prepared by the Southeast Regional Office of
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to provide an overview
of the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and
implementing rules. The following pages provide a brief legislative and
regulatory background, introduce the concept of EFH, and describe
consultation requirements. Consistent with elements of the NMFS'
National Habitat Plan, Strategic Plan, and Habitat Conservation Policy,
this document is intended to: provide a mechanism for information
exchange; foster interagency discussion and problem-solving; and enhance
communication and coordination among the NMFS, Caribbean Fishery
Management Council (CFMC), and affected agencies of the U.S. Caribbean.
Ultimately, improved interagency coordination and consultation will
enhance the ability of the agencies, working cooperatively, to sustain
healthy and productive marine fishery habitats.

**Legislative and Regulatory Background**

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (excerpted at
Appendix 1) set forth a new mandate to identify and protect important
marine and anadromous fisheries habitat. The FMCs, with assistance from
NMFS, are required to delineate EFH in fishery management plans (FMP) or
FMP amendments for all federally managed fisheries. Federal action
agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely
affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding potential adverse
impacts of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to NMFS and FMC
recommendations. In addition, NMFS is directed to comment on local
government activities that would impact EFH. Measures recommended to
protect EFH by NMFS or an FMC are advisory, not proscriptive.

The purpose of addressing habitat in the Act is to further one of the
nation's important marine resource management goals - maintaining
sustainable fisheries. Achieving this goal requires the long-term
maintenance of suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity.
However, federal agencies that do not adopt EFH conservation
recommendations must provide a written explanation setting forth the
scientific basis for that decision. An effective EFH consultation
process is essential to ensuring that federal actions are carried out in
a manner consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act resource management goals.

Guidance and procedures for implementing the 1996 amendments of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act were provided through interim final rules
established by the NMFS in 1997, as amended by final rules in 2002 (50
CFR Sections 600.805 - 600.930). These rules specify that FMP amendments
be prepared to describe and identify EFH and identify appropriate
actions to conserve and enhance those habitats. In addition, the rules
establish procedures to promote the protection of EFH through
interagency coordination and consultation on proposed federal and local
(territory and commonwealth) actions.

**EFH Designation**

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that EFH be identified for all
fisheries that are federally managed. This includes species managed by
the FMCs under federal FMPs, as well as those managed by the NMFS under
FMPs developed by the Secretary of Commerce. FMP authorities, along with
species or species assemblages covered by the FMPs of the CFMC and NMFS
in the U.S. Caribbean, are listed in Appendices 2 and 3. Because the
listed species under the CFMC's authorities collectively occur
throughout the areas managed by the CFMC, consideration of those species
and life stages for which natural history data may be limited would not
encompass a greater geographic area.

EFH is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "\...those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth
to maturity." The rules promulgated by the NMFS in 1997 and 2002 further
clarify EFH with the following definitions: **waters** - aquatic areas
and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that
are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish
where appropriate; **substrate** - sediment, hard bottom, structures
underlying the waters, and associated biological communities;
**necessary** - the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery
and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and
**spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity** - stages
representing a species' full life cycle. EFH may be a subset of all
areas occupied by a species. Acknowledging that the amount of
information available for EFH determinations will vary for the different
life stages of each species, the rules direct the FMCs to use the best
information available, to take a risk averse approach to designations,
and to be increasingly specific and narrow in their delineations as more
refined information becomes available.

General types of habitat designated as EFH by the CFMC are categorized
in Appendix 4. Additional sources of information useful for preparing
EFH assessments, or otherwise develop a greater understanding of EFH
designations and federally managed fishery resources, are available
through the NMFS and CFMC. Appendix 8 provides citations related to FMP
amendments and environmental documents and identifies web sites
containing information on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS final rule
for the implementation of EFH designation and consultation provisions,
and data on specific managed fisheries and associated habitats. NMFS and
CFMC points of contact are identified in Appendix 9.

The rules also direct FMCs to consider a second, more limited habitat
designation for each species in addition to EFH. Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPCs) are described in the rules as subsets of EFH
which are rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation,
especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally
stressed area. In general, HAPCs include high value intertidal and
estuarine habitats, offshore areas of high habitat value or vertical
relief, and habitats used for migration, spawning, and rearing of fish
and shellfish. Areas identified as HAPC by the NMFS and the CFMC are
presented in Appendix 5. For a complete description of designated HAPCs
the reader should reference the appropriate FMP amendment and related
environmental documentation. HAPCs are not afforded any additional
regulatory protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; however, federal
actions with potential adverse impacts to HAPCs will be more carefully
scrutinized during the consultation process and will be subject to more
stringent EFH conservation recommendations.

Designating the spatial and seasonal extent of EFH has taken careful and
deliberate consideration by NMFS and the CFMC. The effort to identify
and delineate EFH in the various fishery management plans was a rigorous
process that involved advice and input by numerous state and federal
agencies and the public at large. The Caribbean FMC has produced a
generic management plan amendment, revised in 2005, to define and
designate EFH for all fisheries managed by the council. Reference may be
made to Appendices 6 and 7 for summaries of many of the
federally-managed species or species assemblages and the associated
categories of EFH for each based on information provided by the CFMC and
NMFS. These two appendices are intended to provide a summary of habitat
and geographic information on species managed by the CFMC and highly
migratory species managed by the NMFS, where EFH has been identified for
the managed species or assemblage of species within oceanic, coastal,
and estuarine habitats of the U.S. Caribbean. To review a definitive
description of EFH, the reader should refer to the latest FMP amendment
and supporting environmental documentation for species-specific
descriptions of EFH.

Besides delineating EFH, the FMP amendment produced by the CFMC
identifies and describes potential threats to EFH, which include threats
from development, fishing, or any other sources. Also identified are
recommend EFH conservation and enhancement measures. Guidelines used in
the development of EFH amendment sections for each of these issues are
included in the EFH rules.

The CFMC and other FMCs also are required to implement management
measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, any adverse impacts to
EFH caused by fishing gears. Those measures can include area closures,
gear restrictions, seasonal restrictions, and various other measures
designed to avoid or minimize degradation of EFH attributable to fishing
activities. The CFMC has imposed various protective measures on some of
the fisheries under its jurisdiction and is coordinating with the NMFS
to identify and sponsor research necessary to determine where additional
conservation measures might be appropriate.

To ensure that EFH designations are made using the most current
scientific information, the EFH rules require that the designations be
reviewed at least once every 5 years. Consistent with this requirement
the Caribbean FMC and NMFS are continually evaluating new information
relative to habitat requirements of managed fisheries.

**EFH Consultations**

In the regulatory context, one of the most important provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act for conserving fish habitat is that which requires
consultation when an activity proposed by a federal agency may adversely
impact areas designated as EFH. The consultation requirement of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act direct federal agencies to consult with NMFS
whether those activities are to be permitted, funded, or directly
undertaken. The EFH rules define an **adverse affect** as "any impact
which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH\...\[and\] may include
direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g.,
loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat
wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic
consequences of actions."

The consultation provisions have caused some concern among federal
action agencies regarding potential increases in workload and the
regulatory burden on the public. NMFS has addressed these concerns in
the EFH rules by emphasizing and encouraging the use of existing
environmental review processes and time frames. Provided the
specifications outlined in the rules are met, EFH consultations should
be incorporated into interagency procedures previously established under
the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean
Water Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, or other applicable
statutes.

To incorporate EFH consultations into coordination, consultation and/or
environmental review procedures already required by other statutes,
three criteria must be met:

\(1\) The existing process must provide NMFS with timely notification of
the action;

\(2\) Notification of the action must include an *EFH Assessment* of the
impacts of the proposed action as outlined in the EFH rules; and

\(3\) NMFS must have completed a written *finding* that the existing
coordination process satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.

An *EFH Assessment* is a review of the proposed project and its
potential impacts to EFH. As set forth in the final rule, *EFH
Assessments* must include: (1) a description of the proposed action; (2)
an analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the action
on EFH, the managed species, and associated species by life history
stage; (3) the federal agency's views regarding the effects of the
action on EFH; and (4) proposed mitigation, if applicable. If
appropriate, the assessment should also include the results of an
on-site inspection, the views of recognized experts on the habitat or
species affects, a literature review, an analysis of alternatives to the
proposed action, and any other relevant information.

Once NMFS learns of a federal or state activity that may have an adverse
effect on EFH, NMFS is required to develop EFH conservation
recommendations for the activity, even if consultation has not been
initiated by the action agency. These recommendations may include
measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse
effects on EFH and are to be provided to the action agency in a timely
manner. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also authorizes FMCs to comment on
federal and state projects, and directs FMCs to comment on any project
that may "substantially" impact EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires
that federal agencies respond to EFH conservation recommendations of the
NMFS and FMCs in writing and within 30 days (implementing regulations
allow for establishing alternative time frames).

Consultations may be conducted through programmatic, general
concurrence, or project specific mechanisms. Evaluation at a
programmatic level may be appropriate when sufficient information is
available to develop EFH conservation recommendations and address all
reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts under a particular program area.
General Concurrences can be utilized for categories of similar
activities having minimal individual and cumulative impacts, but require
periodic reporting of the approved activities. Programmatic and General
Concurrence consultations minimize the need for individual project
consultation in most cases because NMFS has determined that the actions
will likely result in no more than minimal adverse effects, and
conservation measures would be implemented. For example, NMFS might
agree to a General Concurrence for the construction of docks or piers
which, with incorporation of design or siting constraints, would
minimally affect federally managed fishery resources and their habitats.

Consultations at a project-specific level are required when critical
decisions are made at the project implementation stage, or when
sufficiently detailed information for development of EFH conservation
recommendations does not exist at the programmatic level. To facilitate
project-specific consultations, NMFS and the action agency should
discuss how existing review or coordination processes can be used to
accomplish the EFH consultation. With agreement on how existing
coordination mechanisms will be used, the NMFS will transmit a
*findings* letter to the action agency describing the conduct of EFH
consultation within existing project review frameworks. In 1999-2000,
*findings* were established for interagency coordination of Department
of the Army permitting and construction activities carried out in the
U.S. Caribbean.

Project specific consultations must follow either the abbreviated or
expanded procedures. Abbreviated consultations allow NMFS to quickly
determine whether, and to what degree, a federal action may adversely
impact EFH, and should be used when impacts to EFH are expected to be
minor. For example, the abbreviated consultation procedure would be used
when the adverse effect of an action or proposed action could be
alleviated through minor design or operational modifications, or the
inclusion of measures to offset unavoidable adverse impacts.

Expanded consultations allow NMFS and a federal action agency the
maximum opportunity to work together in the review of an activity's
impact on EFH and the development of EFH conservation recommendations.
Expanded consultation procedures must be used for federal actions that
would result in substantial adverse effects to EFH. Federal action
agencies are encouraged to contact NMFS at the earliest opportunity to
discuss whether the adverse effect of a proposed action makes expanded
consultation appropriate. In addition, it may be determined after review
of an abbreviated consultation that a greater level of review and
analysis would be appropriate and that review through expanded
consultation procedures should be employed. Expanded consultation
procedures provide additional time for the development of conservation
recommendations, and may be appropriate for actions such as the
construction of large marinas or port facilities, or activities subject
to preparation of an environmental impact statement.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that a federal action agency must
respond in writing to EFH conservation recommendations from NMFS and
FMCs within 30 days of receiving such recommendations. The rules require
that such a response be provided at least 10 days prior to final
approval of the action, if a decision by the federal agency is required
in fewer than 30 days and the proposed action is inconsistent with the
recommendations of the NMFS, and allow consideration of other
alternative time frames in which action agency responses may be
provided. 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
NMFS conservation recommendations, the agency must explain its reasons
for not following the recommendations, including the scientific
rationale for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects
of the proposed action and the measures needed to offset such effects.

The regulations provide an important opportunity to resolve critical and
outstanding EFH issues prior to an action agency rendering a final
decision. When an agency decision is inconsistent with NMFS conservation
recommendations, the NMFS Assistant Administrator may request a meeting
with the head of the action agency to further discuss the project and
achieve a greater level protection of EFH and federally managed
fisheries. The process for higher-level review of proposed actions is
not specified in the regulations; rather it is to be addressed on an
agency-by-agency basis. In keeping with NMFS's effort to minimize the
regulatory burden of EFH consultation requirements, review by the
Assistant Administrator and action agency representative should be
streamlined and highly focused.

**Conclusion**

The EFH mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act represent an integration of
fishery management and habitat management by stressing the dependency of
healthy, productive fisheries on the maintenance of viable and diverse
estuarine and marine ecosystems. Federal action agencies are required to
consult with the NMFS whenever a construction, permitting, funding, or
other action may adversely affect EFH. The EFH consultation process will
ensure that federal agencies explicitly consider the effects of their
actions on important habitats, with the goal of supporting the
sustainable management of marine fisheries. The NMFS is committed to
working with federal and state agencies to implement these mandates
effectively and efficiently, with the ultimate goal of sustaining of the
nation's fishery resources.

Comments, questions, and suggested revisions may be directed to Rickey
Ruebsamen (EFH Coordinator) at 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City,
Florida 32408; phone: 850/234-5061; email: ric.ruebsamen@noaa.gov.

**Appendix 1. Selected Text from the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act** (As Amended Through October 11, 1996)

16 U.S.C. 1854 note, 1855

M-S Act §§ 304 note, § 305

SEC. 305. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY 16 U.S.C. 1855

104-297

\(b\) FISH HABITAT.

\(1\) (A) The Secretary shall, within 6 months of the date of enactment
of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, establish by regulation guidelines to
assist the Councils in the description and identification of essential
fish habitat in fishery management plans (including adverse impacts on
such habitat) and in the consideration of actions to ensure the
conservation and enhancement of such habitat. The Secretary shall set
forth a schedule for the amendment of fishery management plans to
include the identification of essential fish habitat and for the review
and updating of such identifications based on new scientific evidence or
other relevant information.

\(B\) The Secretary, in consultation with participants in the fishery,
shall provide each Council with recommendations and information
regarding each fishery under that Council\'s authority to assist it in
the identification of essential fish habitat, the adverse impacts on
that habitat, and the actions that should be considered to ensure the
conservation and enhancement of that habitat.

\(C\) The Secretary shall review programs administered by the Department
of Commerce and ensure that any relevant programs further the
conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat.

\(D\) The Secretary shall coordinate with and provide information to
other Federal agencies to further the conservation and enhancement of
essential fish habitat.

\(2\) Each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary with respect
to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be
authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely
affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act.

\(3\) Each Council\--

\(A\) may comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and any
Federal or State agency concerning any activity authorized, funded, or
undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by any
Federal or State agency that, in the view of the Council, may affect the
habitat, including essential fish habitat, of a fishery resource under
its authority; and

\(B\) shall comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and any
Federal or State agency concerning any such activity that, in the view
of the Council, is likely to substantially affect the habitat, including
essential fish habitat, of an anadromous fishery resource under its
authority.

\(4\) (A) If the Secretary receives information from a Council or
Federal or State agency or determines from other sources that an action
authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded,
or undertaken, by any State or Federal agency would adversely affect any
essential fish habitat identified under this Act, the Secretary shall
recommend to such agency measures that can be taken by such agency to
conserve such habitat.

\(B\) Within 30 days after receiving a recommendation under subparagraph
(A), a Federal agency shall provide a detailed response in writing to
any Council commenting under paragraph (3) and the Secretary regarding
the matter. The response shall include a description of measures
proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the
impact of the activity on such habitat. In the case of a response that
is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Secretary, the Federal
agency shall explain its reasons for not following the recommendations.

**Appendix 2. Fishery Management Plans and Managed Species of the
Caribbean Region.**

Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan

> almaco jack - *Seriola rivoliana*
>
> Atlantic spadefish - *Chaetodipterus faber*
>
> bar jack - *Caranx ruber*
>
> bigeye - *Priacanthus arenatus*
>
> black durgon - *Melichthys niger*
>
> black jack -- *C. lugubris*
>
> black snapper - *Apsilus dentatus*
>
> blackfin snapper - *Lutjanus buccanella*
>
> Blackline tilefish - *Caulolatilus cyanops*
>
> blue parrotfish - *Scarus coeruleus*
>
> blue runner - *Caranx crysos*
>
> bluestriped grunt - *Haemulon sciurus*
>
> cardinal soldierfish - *Plectrypops retrospinis*
>
> chalk bass - *Serranus tortugarum*
>
> coney - *Epinephelus fulvus*
>
> Creolefish - *Paranthias furcifer*
>
> doctorfish - *Acanthurus chirurgus*
>
> dog snapper -- *L. jocu*
>
> French grunt -- *H. flavolineatum*
>
> glasseye snapper - *Priacanthus cruentatus*
>
> goliath grouper -- *E. itajara*
>
> gray angelfish - *Pomacanthus arcuatus*
>
> gray snapper -- *L. griseus*
>
> graysby -- *E. cruentatus*
>
> greater amberjack - *Seriola dumerili*
>
> greater soapfish - *Rypticus saponaceus*
>
> hogfish - *Lachnolaimus maximus*
>
> honeycomb cowfish - *Lactophrys polygonia*
>
> horse-eye jack -- *C. latus*
>
> jolthead porgy - *Calamus bajonado*
>
> lane snapper - *Lutjanus synagris*
>
> lantern bass - *Serranus baldwini*
>
> longspine squirrelfish - *Holocentrus rufus*
>
> mahogany snapper -- *L. mahogani*
>
> margate - *Haemulon album*
>
> midnight parrotfish - *Scarus coelestinus*
>
> misty grouper -- *E. mystacinus*
>
> mutton snapper -- *L. analis*
>
> Nassau grouper -- *E. striatus*
>
> ocean surgeonfish -- *A. bahianus*
>
> ocean triggerfish - *Canthidermis sufflamen*
>
> orangeback bass - *Serranus annularis*
>
> pluma - *Calamus pennatula*
>
> porkfish - *Anisotremus virginicus*
>
> princess parrotfish - *Scarus taeniopterus*
>
> queen angelfish - *Holacanthus ciliaris*
>
> queen parrotfish -- *S. vetula*
>
> queen snapper - *Etelis oculatus*
>
> queen triggerfish - *Balistes vetula*
>
> rainbow parrotfish -- *S. guacamaia*
>
> red grouper -- *E. morio*
>
> red hind -- *E. guttatus*
>
> redband parrotfish - *Sparisoma aurofrenatum*
>
> redfin parrotfish - *Sparisoma rubripinne*
>
> redtail parrotfish -- *S. chrysopterum*
>
> rock hind -- *E. adscensionis*

Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (cont.)

> sand diver - *Synodus intermedius*
>
> sand tilefish - *Malacanthus plumieri*
>
> schoolmaster -- *L. apodus*
>
> scrawled cowfish - *Lactophrys quadricornis*
>
> scrawled filefish - *Aluterus scriptus*
>
> sea bream - *Archosargus rhomboidalis*
>
> sergeant major - *Abudefduf saxatilis*
>
> sheepshead porgy - *Calamus penna*
>
> silk snapper - *Lutjanus vivanus*
>
> smooth trunkfish - *Lactophrys triqueter*
>
> spotted goatfish - *Pseudupeneus maculatus*
>
> spotted trunkfish -- *L. bicaudalis*
>
> squirrelfish - *Holocentrus adscensionis*
>
> stoplight parrotfish - *Sparisoma viride*
>
> striped parrotfish - *Scarus croicensis*
>
> tiger grouper - *Mycteroperca tigris*
>
> tobaccofish - *Serranus tabacarius*
>
> tomtate - *Haemulon aurolineatum*
>
> trunkfish -- *L. trigonus*
>
> vermilion snapper - *Rhomboplites aurorubens*
>
> wenchman - *Pristipomoides aquilonaris*
>
> white grunt -- *H. plumieri*
>
> whitespotted filefish -- *Cantherhines macrocerus*
>
> yellow goatfish - *Mulloidichthys martinicus*
>
> yellow jack - *Caranx bartholomaei*
>
> yellowedge grouper -- *E. flavolimbatus*
>
> yellowfin grouper - *Mycteroperca venenosa*
>
> yellowtail snapper - *Ocyurus chrysurus*

Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan

spiny lobster - *Panulirus argus*

Queen Conch Fishery Management Plan

queen conch - *Strombus gigas*

> Atlantic triton\'s trumpet - *Charonia variegate*
>
> milk conch -- *S. costatus*
>
> cameo helmet - *Cassis madagascarensis*
>
> roostertail conch -- *S. gallus*
>
> true tulip - *Fasciolaria tulipa*
>
> West Indian fighting conch -- *S. pugilis*
>
> green star shell - *Astrea tuber*
>
> hawkwing conch -- *S. raninus*

Coral Fishery Management Plan

> varied coral species and coral reef communities comprised of several
> hundred species

**Appendix 3. Species Managed under the Federally Implemented (NMFS)
Fishery Management Plans in the U.S. Caribbean.**

Billfish

> blue marlin - *Makaira nigricans*

longbill spearfish - *Tetrapturus pfluegeri*

sailfish - *Istiophorus platypterus*

white marlin - *T. albidus*

Swordfish

swordfish - *Xiphias gladius*

Tuna

> albacore - *Thunnus alalunga*

Atlantic bigeye - *T. obesus*

> Atlantic yellowfin - *T. albacares*
>
> skipjack - *Katsuwonus pelamis*

western Atlantic bluefin - *T. thynnus*

Sharks

> Atlantic angel shark - *Squatina dumerili*
>
> Atlantic sharpnose shark - *Rhizoprionodon*

*terraenovae*

basking shark - *Cetorhinus maximus*

bigeye sand tiger - *Odontaspis noronhai*

bigeye sixgill shark - *Hexanchus vitulus*

bigeye thresher shark - *Alopias superciliosus*

bignose shark - *Carcharhinus altimus*

blacknose shark - *C. acronotus*

blacktip shark - *C. limbatus*

blue shark - *Prionace glauca*

bonnethead - *Sphyrna tiburo*

bull shark - *C. leucas*

Sharks (cont.)

Caribbean reef shark - *C. perezi*

Caribbean sharpnose shark - *R. porosus*

common thresher shark - *A. vulpinus*

dusky shark - *C. obscurus*

finetooth shark - *C. isodon*

Galapagos shark - *C. galapagensis*

great hammerhead - *S. mokarran*

lemon shark - *Negaprion brevirostris*

longfin mako shark - *Isurus paucus*

narrowtooth shark - *C. brachyurus*

> night shark - *C. signatus*
>
> nurse shark - *Ginglymostoma cirratum*

oceanic whitetip shark - *C. longimanus*

porbeagle shark - *Lamna nasus*

sandbar shark - *C. plumbeus*

sand tiger shark - *O. taurus*

scalloped hammerhead - *S. lewini*

> sharpnose sevengill shark - *Heptranchias*

*perlo*

shortfin mako shark - *I. oxyrinchus*

silky shark - *C. falciformis*

sixgill shark - *H. griseus*

smalltail shark - *C. porosus*

smooth hammerhead - *S. zygaena*

spinner shark - *C. brevipinna*

> Tiger shark - *Galeocerdo cuvieri*

whale shark - *Rhinocodon typus*

white shark - *Carcharodon carcharias*

**Appendix 4. Representative Categories of Essential Fish Habitat
Identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendment of the Caribbean Fishery
Management Council. (Generally, EFH for species managed under the NMFS
Billfish and Highly Migratory Species plans falls within the marine and
estuarine water column habitats designated by the Council)**

[Estuarine areas]{.underline}

Water column

> Salt marshes

Mangrove wetlands

Intertidal flats/salt ponds

Sand and shell substrate

Live and hard bottoms

Mud flats

Sandy beaches

Rocky shores

[Marine areas]{.underline}

Water column

Seagrass

Sand and shell substrate

Coral reefs

Algal plains

Live and hard bottoms

**Appendix 5. Geographically Defined Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the Caribbean
Fishery Management Council.**

## Reef Fish - Spawning Habitats

Puerto Rico

Tourmaline Bank/Buoy 8

Abrir La Sierra Bank/Buoy 6

Bajo de Sico

Vieques, El Seco

St. Croix

Mutton snapper spawning aggregation area

East of St. Croix (Lang Bank)

St. Thomas

Hind Bank Marine Conservation District

Grammanik Bank

## Reef Fish - Ecologically Important Habitats

Puerto Rico

Hacienda la Esperanza, Manití

Bajuras and Tiberones, Isabela

Cabezas de San Juan, Fajardo

> JOBANNERR, Jobos Bay

Bioluminescent Bays, Vieques

Boquerón State Forest

Pantano Cibuco, Vega Baja

> Piñones State Forest

Río Espiritu Santo, Río Grande

Seagrass beds of Culebra Island (nine sites designated as Resource

> Category 1 and two additional sites)

Northwest Vieques seagrass west of Mosquito Pier, Vieques

St. Thomas

Southeastern St. Thomas, including Cas Key and the mangrove lagoon in

> Great St. James Bay

Saba Island/Perseverance Bay, including Flat Key and Black Point Reef

St. Croix

Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve and

> Marine Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary

Altona Lagoon

Great Pond South Shore Industrial Area

Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge

## **Appendix 5 (cont.).**

## Coral Habitats

Puerto Rico

Luis Peña Channel, Culebra

Mona/Monito

La Parguera, Lajas

Caja de Muertos, Ponce

Tourmaline Reef

Guánica State Forest

Punta Petrona, Santa Isabel

Ceiba State Forest

La Cordillera, Fajardo

Guayama Reefs

Steps and Tres Palmas, Rincon

Los Corchos Reef, Culebra

Desecheo Reefs, Desecheo

St. Croix

St. Croix Coral Reef Area of Particular Concern, including the East End

> Marine Park
>
> Buck Island Reef National Monument

South Shore Industrial Area Patch Reef and Deep Reef System

Frederiksted Reef System

> Cane Bay

Green Cay Wildlife Refuge

**Appendix 6. Summary of EFH Requirements by Fishery Management Unit for
Species Managed by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council.**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  [Fishery Management     [Species Life           [EFH]{.underline}
  Unit]{.underline}       stage]{.underline}      

  Spiny Lobster Fishery   phyllosome larvae       all waters from mean
                                                  high water to the outer
                                                  boundary of the EEZ

                          other life stages       seagrass, benthic
                                                  algae, mangrove, coral,
                                                  and live/hard bottom
                                                  substrates from mean
                                                  high water to 100
                                                  fathoms depth

  Queen Conch Fishery     eggs and larvae         all waters from mean
                                                  high water to the outer
                                                  boundary of the EEZ

                          other life stages       seagrass, benthic
                                                  algae, coral, live/hard
                                                  bottom, and sand/shell
                                                  substrates from mean
                                                  high water to 100
                                                  fathoms depth

  Reef Fish Fishery       eggs and larvae         all waters from mean
                                                  high water to the outer
                                                  boundary of the EEZ

                          other life stages       all substrates from
                                                  mean high water to 100
                                                  fathoms

  Coral Fishery           larvae                  all waters from mean
                                                  low water to the outer
                                                  boundary of the EEZ

                          other life stages       coral and hard bottom
                                                  substrates from mean
                                                  low water to 100
                                                  fathoms depth
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Appendix 7. Summary of EFH Requirements for High Migratory Species
Managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service.**

[Caribbean Species Life Stage EFH]{.underline}

[Offshore Species]{.underline}

Atlantic yellowfin tuna Eggs/larvae S of 28.25 N, 200 m isobath to EEZ;
US Caribbean

> Juvenile to adult N of 31 N, 500 to 2000 m isobath; Blake Plateau

Swordfish Eggs/larvae S of Hatteras, 200 m isobath to EEZ; US Caribbean

> Juvenile/subadult S to 31.5 N, 25 - 2000 m isobath, and S of 29 N
> from100 m to EEZ

Adults 100 to 2000 m isobath or EEZ

Blue marlin Eggs/larvae S of 29.5 N, 100 m isobath to EEZ

> Juvenile S to 30.75 N and S of 30 N, 200 to 2000 m isobath or EEZ;
> off Puerto Rico and USVI to 2000m isobath or EEZ
>
> Adult S to 33.5 N, 100 - 2000 m; 32 to 30.75 N,
>
> 100 m to 78 W; and S of 29.5 N, 100 m to 50 mi. or EEZ; off Puerto
> Rico and USVI to 2000m isobath or EEZ

Oceanic whitetip shark Early juvenile Charleston Bump

Late juvenile 32 to 26 N, 200 m to EEZ

Adult 36 to 30 N, 200 m to EEZ; S of USVI to 2000m isobath or EEZ

[Coastal/Inshore Species]{.underline}

Tiger shark Late juvenile/subadult southwest coast of Puerto Rico,
inshore to 2000 m isobath

Adult south and southwest coast of Puerto Rico, inshore to 2000 m
isobath

**Appendix 8. Sources of EFH and Related Resource Information for the
U.S. Caribbean.**

#### Fishery Management Plans and Related Documents

Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
generic amendment to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of the U.S.
Caribbean including a draft environmental assessment. Caribbean Fishery
Management Council. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 2 vols.

Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 2004. Final Environmental Impact
Statement

> for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Fishery
> Management Plans of the U.S. Caribbean. Caribbean Fishery Management
> Council. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 2005. Amendment to the Fishery
Management Plans (FMPs) of the U.S. Caribbean to Address Required
Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act:

> • Amendment 2 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico
> and the U.S. Virgin Islands
>
> • Amendment 1 to FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and
> the U.S. Virgin Islands
>
> • Amendment 3 to the FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and
> the U.S. Virgin Islands
>
> • Amendment 2 to the FMP for the Corals and Reef Associated
> Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
>
> Including Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory
> Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. San Juan,
> Puerto Rico.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic
billfish fishery management plan amendment. National Marine Fisheries
Service. Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Fishery management plan for
Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks. National Marine Fisheries
Service. Silver Spring, MD. 2 vols.

[EFH Related Web Sites]{.underline}

Caribbean FMC
[http://www.caribbeanfmc.com](http://www.caribbeanfmc.com/)

Caribbean EFH maps <http://christensenmac.nos.noaa.gov/briefing.html>

/resources <http://biogeo.nos.noaa.gov/projects/mapping/caribbean/>

EFH Rules [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/efh](http://www.nmfs.gov/)

NMFS Southeast Region <http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/>

Highly migratory pelagic and

billfish EFH amendments
[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Final.html](http://www.nmfs.gov/sfa/hms/Final.html)

**Appendix 9. Points of Contact for Essential Fish Habitat Activities
within the U.S. Caribbean.**

[National Marine Fisheries Service]{.underline}

[Southeast Region]{.underline}

Miles Croom

Assistant Regional Administrator

Habitat Conservation Division

National Marine Fisheries Service

263 13^th^ Avenue South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

727/551-5739

<miles.croom@noaa.gov>

Rickey Ruebsamen (EFH Coordinator)

National Marine Fisheries Service

3500 Delwood Beach Road

Panama City, FL 32408

> 850/234-5061
>
> [ric.ruebsamen@noaa.gov](mailto:rickey.ruebsamen@noaa.gov)

[Caribbean Fishery Management Council]{.underline}

Executive Director

Caribbean Fishery Management Council

268 Avenue Rivera, Suite 1108

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-2577

787/766-5926

[caribefish@upr1.upr.clu.edu](mailto:CARIBEFISHE@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU)

EFH Point of Contact

Graciela Garcia-Moliner

787/766-5926

[caribefish@upr1.upr.clu.edu](mailto:CARIBEFISHE@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU)