***Number range CHAPTER***

**Essential Fish Habitat:**

**A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate**

**for Federal Agencies**

[South Atlantic Region]{.underline}

![](media/image1.png){width="1.5in" height="1.2451388888888888in"}

***National Marine Fisheries Service***

***Habitat Conservation Division***

***Southeast Regional Office***

***9721 Executive Center Drive North***

***St. Petersburg, FL 33702***

***727/570-5317***

***February 1999***

***(revised 08/04)***

***Executive Summary***

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) set forth a new mandate for the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management
councils (FMC), and other Federal agencies to identify and protect
important marine and anadromous fish habitats. The EFH provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act support one of the Nation's overall marine resource
management goals - maintaining sustainable fisheries. Essential to
achieving this goal is the maintenance of suitable marine fishery
habitat quality and quantity. The FMCs, with assistance from NMFS, has
delineated "essential fish habitat" (EFH) for Federally managed species.
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 which may affect EFH. Measures recommended by NMFS or
an FMC to protect EFH are advisory, not proscriptive.

On December 19, 1997, interim final rules were published in the Federal
Register (Vol. 62, No. 244) which specify procedures for implementation
of the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These rules were
amended by publication of final rules on January 17, 2002 (Vol. 67, No.
12). The rules, in two subparts, address requirements for fishery
management plan (FMP) amendment, and detail 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. Generic FMP amendments delineating EFH for species managed by the
three FMCs and NMFS were completed in early 1999. In addition, EFH for
some species managed by the Mid-Atlantic FMC has been identified and
includes various coastal and offshore waters as far south as the Florida
Keys.

Wherever possible, NMFS intends to use existing interagency coordination
processes to fulfill 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 should
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 either expanded or abbreviated individual project
consultations.

An effective, interagency EFH consultation process is vital to ensure
that Federal actions are consistent with the 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 the
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
regulations. 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's
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, regional fishery
management councils (FMC), and affected state and Federal agencies.
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. NMFS and 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 any state agency activities that would impact
EFH.

The purpose of addressing habitat in this 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.
Measures recommended to protect EFH by NMFS or an FMC are advisory, not
proscriptive. An effective EFH consultation process is vital to ensuring
that Federal actions are consistent with the 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, as
revised by final rules published by the NMFS 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 state actions.

**EFH Designation**

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that EFH be identified for all
fisheries which 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. Applicable FMP authorities
for the Atlantic coast segment of the NMFS Southeast Region, along with
some of the species covered by the FMPs of the South Atlantic and
Mid-Atlantic FMCs, are listed in Appendix 2. Species listed are those
for which data were adequate to define and map EFH. The listed species
under each FMC's authorities collectively occur throughout the areas
managed by the South Atlantic FMC, therefore, inclusion of those species
for which life history data are limited would not encompass a greater
geographic area. Inclusion of species managed by the Mid-Atlantic FMC is
necessary because EFH for some species managed by that council has been
identified to extend as far south as the Florida Keys in the South
Atlantic area. Similar information is provided in Appendix 3 for
billfish and other highly migratory species directly managed by the
NMFS.

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 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.

The areas designated as EFH by the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic FMCs
are broadly identified in Appendix 4. Additional sources of information,
useful for preparing EFH assessments, and to further one's understanding
of EFH designations and Federally managed fishery resources are
available through the NMFS and FMCs. Appendix 9 provides citations for
published Fishery Management Plan amendments and identifies web sites
containing information on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS final rules
for the implementation of EFH designation and consultation provisions,
and data on specific managed fisheries and associated habitats. NMFS and
FMC points of contact are identified in Appendix 10.

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, HAPC 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 FMCs are
presented in Appendix 5. For a complete description of designated HAPCs
the reader should reference EFH amendments of the Councils and NMFS.
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 FMCs. 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 South Atlantic FMC has produced a
generic management plan amendment to define and designate EFH for all of
its managed fisheries. The Mid-Atlantic FMC and NMFS have prepared
multiple FMPs/amendments to identify EFH within their respective
authorities. Reference may be made to Appendices 6 through 8 for
summaries of many of the Federally-managed species and the associated
categories of EFH for each life stage based on information provided by
the FMCs (note, information for all species and all life stages is not
available). These three appendices are intended to provide an
interpretative summary of habitat and geographic information on species
managed by the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic FMCs, as well as for
highly migratory species managed by the NMFS, where EFH has been
identified for the managed species within oceanic, coastal, and
estuarine habitats of the southeastern U.S. To review a definitive
description of EFH, the reader should refer to each of the FMP
amendments for species-specific descriptions of EFH.

Besides delineating EFH, the FMP amendments produced by NMFS and each
council identify and describe potential threats to EFH, which include
threats from development, fishing, or any other sources. Also identified
are recommended 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.

FMCs and NMFS 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 other measures designed to
avoid or minimize degradation of EFH attributable to fishing activities.
The councils have imposed various protective measures (e.g., gear
restrictions and area closures) on some of the fisheries under their
jurisdiction and are coordinating with the NMFS to identify research
necessary to determine where additional conservation measures might be
appropriate.

**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
Federal agencies to consult with NMFS when any activity proposed to be
permitted, funded, or undertaken by a Federal agency may have adverse
affects on designated EFH. The consultation requirements in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act direct Federal agencies to consult with NMFS when
any of their activities may have an adverse affect on EFH. 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 rules, *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 affected, 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.

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.
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 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.

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 and 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 those 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 that decision is inconsistent with the
recommendations of the NMFS. 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), 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL
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 for the South
Atlantic Region.**

**[SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL]{.underline}**

Shrimp Fishery Management Plan

brown shrimp - *Farfantepenaeus aztecus*

pink shrimp - *F. duorarum*

rock shrimp - *Sicyonia brevirostri*s

royal red shrimp - *Pleoticus robustus*

white shrimp - *Litopenaeus setiferus*

Red Drum Fishery Management Plan

red drum - *Sciaenops ocellatus*

Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan

blackfin snapper - *Lutjanus buccanella*

blueline tilefish - *Caulolatilus microps*

goliath grouper -*Epinephelus itajara*

gray snapper - *L. griseus*

greater amberjack - *Seriola dumerili*

mutton snapper - *L. analis*

red porgy - *Pagrus pagrus*

red snapper - *L. campechanus*

scamp - *Mycteroperca phenax*

silk snapper - *L. vivanus*

snowy grouper - *E. niveatus*

speckled hind - *E. drummondhayi*

vermilion snapper - *Rhomboplites aurorubens*

yellowedge grouper - *E. flavolimbatus*

warsaw grouper - *E. nigritus*

white grunt - *Haemulon plumieri*

wreckfish - *Polyprion americanus*

Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan

cobia - *Rachycentron canadum*

king mackerel - *Scomberomorus cavalla*

Spanish mackerel - *S. maculatus*

Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan

golden crab - *Chaceon fenneri*

Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan

spiny lobster - *Panulirus argus*

Coral and Coral Reef Fishery Management Plan

varied coral species and coral reef communities

Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan

calico scallop - *Argopecten gibbus*

Dolphin-Wahoo Fishery Management Plan

common dolphin - *Coryphaena hippurus*

pompano dolphin -- *C. equiselis*

wahoo - *Acanthocybium solanderi*

Sargassum Fishery Management Plan

Sargassum - *Sargassum sp.*

**[MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL]{.underline}**

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

> black sea bass - *Centropristus striata*
>
> scup - *Stenotomus chrysops*
>
> summer flounder - *Paralichthys dentatus*

Bluefish Fishery Management Plan

> bluefish - *Pomatomus saltatrix*

Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan

> ocean quahog - *Artica islandica*
>
> surfclam - *Spisula solidissima*

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan

> Atlantic butterfish - *Peprilus triacanthus*
>
> Atlantic mackerel - *Scomber scombrus*
>
> long finned squidf - *Loligo peales*
>
> short finned squid - *Illex illecebrosus*

Dogfish Fishery Management Plan

> spiny dogfish - *Squalus acanthias*

**Appendix 3. Species Managed under the Federally-Implemented Fishery
Management Plans.**

**[NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE]{.underline}**

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 - *Heptranchia 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 *cerdo cuvieri*whale shark -

**Appendix 4. Essential Fish Habitat Identified in Fishery Management
Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Councils. (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 councils)**

[South Atlantic FMC]{.underline}

*Estuarine areas*

Estuarine emergent wetlands

Estuarine scrub/shrub mangroves

Submerged aquatic vegetation

Oyster reefs & shell banks

Intertidal flats

Palustrine emergent & forested wetlands

Aquatic beds

Estuarine water column

*Marine areas*

Live/Hard bottoms

Coral & coral reefs

Artificial/manmade reefs

Sargassum

Water column

[Mid-Atlantic FMC]{.underline}

*Estuarine areas*

Seagrass

Creeks

Mud bottom

Estuarine water column

*Marine areas*

Water column

**Appendix 5. Geographically Defined Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments Affecting the South
Atlantic Area.**

[South Atlantic]{.underline}

[Area-wide]{.underline}

> Council-designated artificial reef special management zones
>
> Hermatypic coral habitat and reefs

Hard bottoms

Hoyt Hills

*Sargassum* habitat

> State-designated areas of importance to managed species
>
> Submerged aquatic vegetation

[North Carolina]{.underline}

Big Rock

Bogue Sound

> Pamlico Sound at Hatteras/Okracoke Islands
>
> Capes Hatteras, Fear and Lookout (sandy shoals)

New River

> The Ten Fathom Ledge
>
> The Point

[South Carolina]{.underline}

> Broad River

Charleston Bump

Hurl Rocks

[S. Atlantic (cont)]{.underline}

[Georgia]{.underline}

> Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary

[Florida]{.underline}

> Blake Plateau (manganese outcroppings)
>
> Biscayne BayBiscayne National Park

Card Sound

> Florida BayFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Jupiter Inlet Point

Mangrove habitat

Marathon Hump

Oculina Bank

> *hragmatopoma* (worm) reefs
>
> The Wall (Fl

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

[Species Life Stage Ecosystem EFH]{.underline}

Brown shrimp

EFH identified from eggs Marine (M) demersal 13.7 - 110 m

NC - FL Keys larvae M planktonic \<110 m

postlarvae/juvenile Estuarine (E) marsh edge, SAV, tidal creeks, inner
marsh

subadults E mud bottoms, marsh edge

adults M \<110 m, silt sand, muddy sand

White shrimp

EFH identified from eggs M nearshore & 6.1 - 24.4 m, demersal

NC - St. Lucie Inlet, FL larvae M \<24.4 m, planktonic

postlarvae/juvenile E mud/peat marsh edge, SAV, marsh ponds, inner marsh

subadults E mud/peat marsh edge, SAV, marsh ponds, inner marsh

adults M \<27 m, soft mud

Pink shrimp

EFH identified from eggs M 3.7 - 16 m, demersal

NC and FL larvae M planktonic \<16 m

postlarvae/juvenile E SAV, sand/shell substrate

subadults E SAV, sand/shell substrate

adults M \<100 m; hard sand/shell substrate

**Penaeid HAPC - tidal inlets & state nursery and overwintering
habitats**

Rock shrimp

EFH identified from adults M terrigenous and biogenic sand, 18 - 182 m

NC - FL Keys

Royal red shrimp

EFH identified from adults M mud/sand substrate 180 - 730 m

NC - FL

Red drum

EFH identified from eggs M tidal inlets, planktonic

NC - FL Keys larvae M tidal inlets, planktonic

postlarvae/juvenile E mud bottoms, SAV, marsh/water interface

subadults E mud bottoms, oyster reef, mangrove

adults M/E inlets & surf zone - 50 m; mud bottoms, oyster reefs

**Red drum HAPC - tidal inlets & state nursery habitats, spawning sites
& SAV**

Snowy grouper

EFH identified from eggs/larvae M pelagic

NC - FL adults M \< 180 m, boulders & relief features

Yellowedge grouper

EFH identified from eggs/larvae M pelagic

NC - FL adults M 190 - 220 m, rocky outcrops & hardbottom

Warsaw grouper

EFH identified from eggs M pelagic

NC - FL Keys adults M 76 - 219 m, cliffs, notches & rocky ledges

**Appendix 6 Continued.**

[Species Life Stage Ecosystem EFH]{.underline}

Scamp

EFH identified from adults M 20 - 100 m, hardbottoms, rock outcrops

NC - FL

Speckled hind

EFH identified from adults M 27 - 122 m, hardbottom

NC - FL

Goliath grouper

EFH identified from juvenile E SAV, mangrove, lagoons, structure

FL adults M \<50 m, hardbottom, ledges, reefs

Wreckfish

EFH identified from adults M \<1000 m, high relief features

NC - FL (Blake Plateau)

Red snapper

EFH identified from larvae M planktonic

NC - FL postlarvae/juvenile M pelagic

adults M hardbottom; 10 - 190 m

Vermilion snapper

EFH identified from juvenile M reefs, hard bottom, 20 - 200 m

NC - FL adults M reefs, hard bottom, 20 - 200 m

Gray snapper

EFH identified from larvae M planktonic

NC - FL postlarvae/juvenile E SAV, mangrove, mud

adults M/E reefs/hardbottom \<77 m; SAV, mangrove, riverine

Mutton snapper

EFH identified from egg/larvae M planktonic

FL juvenile M/E SAV, mangrove, sand, mud

adults M reefs/hardbottom, sand; \< 100m

Blackfin snapper

EFH identified from juvenile M hardbottom; 12 - 40 m

NC - FL adults M shelf edge, 40 - 300 m

Silk snapper

EFH identified from juvenile M structure, hardbottom, 12 - 242 m

NC - FL adults M cliffs/ledges, 64 - 242 m

White grunt

EFH identified from eggs/larvae M planktonic

NC - FL adults M shore - 35 m, reefs/hardbottom, SAV, mangrove

Greater amberjack

EFH identified from juvenile M floating plants (*Sargassum*), debris

NC - FL adults M pelagic over reefs/wrecks

Blueline tilefish

EFH identified from eggs M planktonic

NC - FL adults M shelf edge, 68 - 236 m

**Appendix 6 Continued.**

[Species Life Stage Ecosystem EFH]{.underline}

Golden tilefish

EFH identified from adults M burrows in rough bottom; 76 - 457 m

NC - FL

**Snapper-Grouper HAPC - hardbottom, mangrove, SAV, oyster/shell,
inlets, state nursery areas, *Sargassum,* coral, The Point, Ten Fathom
Ledge, & Big Rock (NC); Chalreston Bump (SC); Blake Plateau & Oculina
Bank (FL); Hoyt Hills**

King mackerel

EFH identified from juvenile M pelagic, S. Atlantic Bight

NC - FL adults M pelagic, S. Atlantic Bight

Spanish mackerel

EFH identified from larvae M offshore \<50 m

NC - FL juvenile M/E offshore, beach, estuarine

adults M pelagic

Cobia

EFH identified from eggs M pelagic

NC - FL larvae M/E estuarine & shelf

postlarvae/juvenile M/E estuarine & shelf

adults M/E coastal & shelf

**Coastal Migratory Pelagic HAPC - Capes Lookout, Fear, & Hatteras sandy
shoals; The Point, Ten Fathom Ledge, Big Rock (NC); Charleston Bump &
Hurl Rocks (SC); The Point, The Hump, Marathon Hump, & The Wall (FL);
worm reefs, hardbottom, *Sargassum*, Bogue Sound, New River, Broad
River**

Dolphin (spp)

EFH identified from all stages M Gulf stream, Charleston Gyre, Florida

NC - FL Current, pelagic *Sargassum*

Wahoo

EFH identified from all stages M Gulf stream, Charleston Gyre, Florida

NC - FL Current, pelagic *Sargassum*

**Dolphin -Wahoo HAPC - The Point, The Ten Fathom Ledge, and Big Rock
(NC); Charleston Bump & Georgetown Hole (SC); The Point, The Hump,
Marathon Hump, The "Wall" (FL); and Pelagic *Sargassum***

Golden crab

EFH identified from adults M mud, dead coral, pebble; 367 - 549 m

NC - FL

Spiny lobster

EFH identified from larvae M/E planktonic

FL juvenile M/E sponge, algae, coral, hardbottom

adults M/E sponge, algae, coral, hardbottom, crevices

**Spiny lobster HAPC - Florida & Biscayne Bays, Card Sound,
coral/hardbottom (Jupiter Inlet - Dry Tortugas)**

Coral

EFH identified from M N/A

FL

**Coral HAPC - Ten Fathom Ledge, Big Rock & The Point (NC); Hurl Rocks
&Charleston Bump (SC); Gray\'s Reef NMS (GA); FL Keys NMS, Biscayne NP,
Biscayne Bay, Oculina Banks & hardbottom/worm reefs (FL)**

Calico scallops

EFH identified from adults M shell, hard sand, gravel; 13 - 94 m

NC - FL

**Appendix 7. Summary of EFH Requirements for Species Managed by the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.**

[Species Life Stage Ecosystem EFH]{.underline}

Bluefish

EFH identified from larvae M \>15 m to Gulf Stream through Key West

North Carolina - FL Keys juveniles E/M as above and estuaries from
Albemarle Sound, NC through St Johns River, FL

adult E/M shore to Gulf Stream through Key West and estuaries from
Albemarle Sound, NC through Indian River, FL

Spiny dogfish

EFH identified from juvenile M shelf waters from 10 - 400 m

NC - FL adult M shelf waters from 10 - 450 m

Summer flounder

EFH identified from larvae/juvenile E/M shelf waters and estuaries from
Albemarle

NC - GA Sound, NC through St. Andrew/Simon Sounds

> adult E/M as above

**Submerged aquatic vegetation is HAPC for larval and juvenile summer
flounder.**

**Appendix 8. Summary of EFH Requirements for High Migratory Species
Managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service.**

[South Atlantic Species]{.underline} [Life Stage]{.underline}
[EFH]{.underline}

Offshore

Albacore tuna adult Blake Plateau & Spur area (FL), \>100 m isobath

Atlantic bigeye tuna Juvenile/adult same as above

Atlantic bluefin tuna Eggs/larvae nearshore to 200 m isobath

> Juvenile/subadult nearshore, S of 27 N

Adults as above and Blake Plateau

Atlantic skipjack tuna Eggs/larvae S of 28.25 N, 200 m isobath to EEZ

Juvenile to adult as above, 25 - 200 m isobath

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

> 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

> 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
>
> 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

White marlin Juvenile S to 25.25 N, 200 - 2000 m isobath (EEZ off FL)

> Adult S to 33.75 N, 200 - 2000 m isobath; Charleston Bump; S of 29 N
> from 200 m to EEZ

Sailfish Eggs/larvae S of 28.25 N, 5 mi offshore to EEZ

> Juvenile S of 32 N, 5 to 125 mi offshore or to EEZ
>
> Adults S of 36 N, 5 125 mi offshore or to EEZ off NC and S FL

Longbill spearfish Juvenile 36.5 to 35 N, 200 m isobath to EEZ

> Adults Charleston Bump

White shark Juvenile 28 to 29.5 N, 25 - 100 m isobath

Bignose shark Juvenile S to 32 N and S of 30 N, 100 - 500 m isobaths

Caribbean reef shark Priority research area \<25 m off Miami & Cape
Canaveral

Night shark Juvenile S to 33.5 N, 100 - 2000 m isobaths

> Adult 36 to 25.5 N, 100 m to EEZ, 100 mi or 2000 m isobath
> (whichever is nearest to land)

Silky shark Juvenile 25 m (FL) or 100m to 2000 m isobaths

Longfin mako shark All stages N of 35 N, 100 m to EEZ; 35 N -28.25 N,
100 - 500 m isobath; S of 28.25 N, 200 m to EEZ

Shortfin mako shark All stages S to Onslow Bay, NC, 25 - 200 m isobaths

Blue shark Late Juvenile/adult S to 35 N, 25 m to EEZ

**Appendix 8 Continued.**

[South Atlantic Species]{.underline} [Life Stage]{.underline}
[EFH]{.underline}

Offshore

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

Bigeye thresher shark All stages 36.5 to 34 N, 200 - 2000 m isobaths

[Coastal/Inshore Species]{.underline}

[Florida Only]{.underline}

Great hammerhead shark Juvenile/adult coastal waters to 100 m, S of 30
N

Nurse shark Juvenile/adult S of 30.5 N, shoreline to 25 m isobath

Blacktip shark Juvenile S to 28.5 N, coastal waters to 25 m isobath

> Adult Outer Banks, NC, shore to 200 m; 30 to 28.5 N, coastal waters
> to 50 m isobath

[Florida - Georgia]{.underline}

Bull shark Juvenile S of 32 N, inlets, estuaries, waters \< 25 m FL

[Florida - South Carolina]{.underline}

Lemon shark Juvenile Bull\'s Bay, SC to 28 N & S of 25.5 N, inlets,
estuaries, waters \< 25 m

Adult 31 to 30 N & S of 27 N, inlets, estuaries, waters \< 25 m

Blacknose shark Juvenile SC - Cape Canaveral, to 25 m

Adult St. Augustine to Canaveral, FL, coastal water to 25 m

Finetooth shark All stages 33 to 30 N, coastal waters to 25 m

[Florida - North Carolina]{.underline}

Scalloped hammerhead shark Juvenile shoreline to 200 m isobath

Adults S to 28 N, 25 - 200 m isobaths

Dusky shark Juvenile S to 33 N and S of 30 N, inlets, estuaries,
waters \< 200 m

Adult S to 28 N, 25 to 200 m isobaths

Sandbar shark Juvenile S to 27.5 N, coastal waters to 25 m

Adult coastal waters to 50 m.

***HAPC for this species identified for Pamlico Sound adjacent to
Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands and offshore.***

Spinner shark Early juvenile S of 32.25 N, coastal waters to 25 m

Juvenile/adult 30.7 to 28.5 N, coastal waters to 200 m

Tiger shark Early juvenile S to Canaveral, coastal waters to 200 m

> Late juvenile shore to 100 m, except GA to Cape Lookout, where EFH is
> between 25 - 100 m

Adult S to Ft Lauderdale, coastal to Gulf Stream

Sand tiger shark Juvenile S to Cape Canaveral, coastal water to 25 m

Adult St. Augustine to Canaveral, FL, coastal water to 25 m

**Appendix 8 Continued.**

[South Atlantic Species]{.underline} [Life Stage]{.underline}
[EFH]{.underline}

Florida - North Carolina

Bonnethead shark Juvenile Cape Fear NC to W. Palm Beach and Miami FL -
FL Keys, inlets, estuaries, waters \<25 m

> Adult Cape Fear NC - Cape Canaveral FL, inlets, estuaries & shallow
> coastal waters; shallow waters of the FL Keys.

Atlantic sharpnose shark Juvenile Daytona Beach - Cape Hatteras, bays
and waters to 25 m

Adult NC & St. Augustine - C. Canaveral, to 100 m isobath

**Appendix 9. Sources of EFH and Related Resource Information.**

[Fishery Management Plan Amendments]{.underline}

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment 1 to the
bluefish fishery management plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council. Dover, DE. 2 vols.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment 8 to the
Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fishery management plan.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover, DE.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment 12 to the
Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery management plan. Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. Dover, DE.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment 12 to the
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishery management plan.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover, DE.

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.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Final habitat plan for
the South Atlantic region: Essential Fish Habitat requirements for
Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic fishery Management
Council: The Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, The Red Drum Fishery
Management Plan, The Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan, The
Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan, The Golden Crab
Fishery Management Plan, The Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan, The
Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat Fishery Management
Plan, and The Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan. South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2003. Fishery management plan
for the dolphin and wahoo fishery of the Atlantic. South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2003. Fishery management plan
for the pelagic Sargassum habitat of the south Atlantic region. South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC.

[EFH Related Web Sites]{.underline}

South Atlantic FMC & EFH amendment [http://www.safmc.net]{.underline}

Mid-Atlantic FMC
[[http://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/mafmc.htm]{.underline}](http://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/mafmc.htm)

EFH Rules <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/efh>

NMFS Southeast Region
[http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov](http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/)

Highly migratory pelagic and

billfish EFH amendments <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Final.html>

NMFS Headquarters
[[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ess_fish_habitat.htm]{.underline}](http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ess_fish_habitat.htm)

**Appendix 10. Points of Contact for Essential Fish Habitat Activities
from North Carolina through Florida along the South Atlantic Coastal
Area.**

[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

727/824-5317

Rickey Ruebsamen (EFH Coordinator)

National Marine Fisheries Service

3500 Delwood Beach Road

Panama City, FL 32408

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

> [Local Office]{.underline}

Pace Wilber (North/South Carolina, Georgia, Florida East Coast)

National Marine Fisheries Service

Charleston Laboratory

217 Fort Johnson Road

Charleston, SC 29422-2559

\(843\) 953-7200 <pace.wilber@noaa.gov>

[South Atlantic Fishery Management Council]{.underline}

Executive Director

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

1 Southpark Circle

Southpark Building, Suite 306

Charleston, SC 29407-4699

843/571-4366

EFH Point of Contact

Roger Pugliese

843/571-4366
[[roger.pugliese@noaa.gov]{.underline}](mailto:roger.pugliese@noaa.gov)

# Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Executive Director

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Room 2115, Federal Building

Dover, Delaware 19901

EFH Point of Contact

Thomas B. Hoff

302/674-2331 x15
[[tom.hoff@noaa.gov]{.underline}](mailto:tom.hoff@noaa..gov)