Golden Gate University Law Review

Spring, 2000

**Article**

**\*969** ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT: BUSINESS
AS USUAL

UNDER THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT?

Lee Benaka [[]{#Document4zzFN_Ba1
.anchor}[\[FNa1\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_Fa1);, Dennis Nixon
[[]{#Document4zzFN_Baa1
.anchor}[\[FNaa1\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_Faa1)

Copyright © 2000 Golden Gate University; Lee Benaka;, Dennis Nixon

Introduction

The world of fisheries science has long understood the relationship
between fish habitat and fisheries production. However, long-standing
environmental laws, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B1 .anchor}[\[FN1\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F1)
and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA),
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B2 .anchor}[\[FN2\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F2)
have prevented effective management solutions to the problem of fish
habitat loss due to coastal activities, and the resultant effects
**\*970** on our nation\'s fisheries production. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B3
.anchor}[\[FN3\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F3) Physical habitat loss
has significantly affected fisheries because estuarine dependent fish
make up seventy-seven percent of the nation\'s commercial harvest.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B4 .anchor}[\[FN4\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F4)
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce\'s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost per
year, and from 1953 to 1977, over 372,000 acres of estuarine wetlands
disappeared. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B5
.anchor}[\[FN5\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F5) Of these 372,000
acres, forty-five percent disappeared due to urban development.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B6 .anchor}[\[FN6\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F6)
Coupled with the high levels of pollution typically found in coastal
waters, the impact of wetland losses on fisheries production has been
significant.

The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) language introduced into the 1996
reauthorization of the MFCMA [[]{#Document4zzFN_B7
.anchor}[\[FN7\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F7) has potential
implications for coastal zone activities similar to those resulting from
the 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act, more
popularly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). [[]{#Document4zzFN_B8
.anchor}[\[FN8\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F8) A wide range of
opinions concerning the EFH policy has been expressed. The policy has
been called both a \"quantum leap in legislative approaches to marine
environments\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B9
.anchor}[\[FN9\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F9)and the \"next great
\'train wreck\' for federally permitted or **\*971** funded development
activities.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B10
.anchor}[\[FN10\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F10) Specifically, the
EFH language required the eight regional fishery management councils
(Councils) that manage U.S. marine fisheries in the United States
Exclusive Economic Zone [[]{#Document4zzFN_B11
.anchor}[\[FN11\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F11) to describe and
identify EFH for each managed fishery [[]{#Document4zzFN_B12
.anchor}[\[FN12\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F12) through amendments
to federal fishery management plans. The re-authorized law, which was
re-titled the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), defined EFH as \"those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to
maturity.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B13
.anchor}[\[FN13\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F13)

As of this writing, thirty-nine EFH fishery management plan amendments
have been approved, or partially approved, by the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary), who implements the Magnuson-Stevens Act through the NMFS,
and the EFH plan amendment for Pacific salmon is still pending.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B14
.anchor}[\[FN14\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F14) The delay over final
approval of the EFH plan amendment for Pacific salmon is due at least in
part to the March 16, 1999 addition of nine populations of salmon and
steelhead in Washington **\*972** and Oregon to the endangered species
list by the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS).
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B15
.anchor}[\[FN15\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F15)

Once EFH is described and identified by the Councils and designations
approved by the Secretary, the EFH consultation process described by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act begins. This consultation process, which is one of
the central products of the EFH provisions, requires federal agencies to
consult with the Secretary regarding any activity, or proposed activity,
authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely
affect EFH. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B16
.anchor}[\[FN16\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F16) As of December 31,
1999, 5,000 such consultations have taken place. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B17
.anchor}[\[FN17\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F17) This consultation
process will affect the permitting process for coastal zone activities
either directly (in the case of federal agencies) or indirectly (in the
case of state agencies) because EFH, as identified in the EFH
amendments, include entire watersheds and coastal waters.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B18
.anchor}[\[FN18\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F18) NMFS has always had
the opportunity to comment on the possible effects of proposed coastal
activities on fisheries through the provisions of the National
Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B19
.anchor}[\[FN19\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F19) However, the EFH
provisions formalize this procedure in law and require a response when
the comments are directed at federal agencies. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B20
.anchor}[\[FN20\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber42)

Part I of this article provides a brief overview of how fish habitat
conservation became a significant priority for NMFS and how and why
provisions to ensure habitat conservation were introduced into the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. We describe **\*973** how the brief language in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act was interpreted by the NMFS through its Interim
Final Rule and controversies related to that interpretation. Part II
examines the response of management agencies in the Gulf of Mexico to
the EFH policy. Specifically, this case study reviews an amendment
created by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to address EFH
requirements and describes some interagency communications in the region
regarding fish habitat conservation and coastal zone activities.

Finally, in Part III, we suggest that although the EFH policy is
somewhat limited in its ability to affect coastal zone management
activities carried out by state agencies, it is a powerful tool to
explicitly introduce habitat considerations into coastal zone management
activities carried out by federal agencies. Further, EFH policy
represents a significant step forward in the conservation of fish
habitat through the legal recognition of fish habitat as a valid basis
for fishery management efforts and as an important factor to consider
when weighing the costs and benefits of coastal zone management
projects.

I. How Efh Was Introduced Into The Magnuson-Stevens Act

The EFH language introduced into the 1996 revision of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act was inspired by a growing concern for fish habitat and its
effects on fisheries production that was repeatedly evidenced by
representatives of the federal government, environmental organizations,
and fishermen\'s associations beginning in the late 1980s and early
1990s. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B21
.anchor}[\[FN21\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F21) This section
discusses the form that some of these concerns took during this time
period and then provides an overview of the final result, i.e., the EFH
language itself.

**\*974** A. A Growing Chorus

In 1989, a report of the U.S. House of Representatives\' Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee cited the degradation of habitat as a reason for
decreasing coastal fisheries productivity. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B22
.anchor}[\[FN22\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F22) Participants in a
1991 national symposium on coastal fish habitat conservation made
several recommendations for changes in policy and organizational
frameworks, including amending the MFCMA to include habitat conservation
as a national standard [[]{#Document4zzFN_B23
.anchor}[\[FN23\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F23) and to give NMFS
regulatory authority over projects that could severely damage fish
habitat. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B24
.anchor}[\[FN24\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F24) In 1992, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) suggested that the MFCMA
should be amended to empower NMFS to force other federal agencies to
change actions that affect federally managed fisheries before the
actions can proceed. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B25
.anchor}[\[FN25\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F25) Also in 1992, the
Marine Fish Conservation Network (MFCN) was created to \"seek reform of
America\'s fishery management laws.\" The MFCN, a coalition of
conservation, fishing, environmental, and other organizations, lobbied
for stronger habitat protection measures in the re-authorized MFCMA.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B26
.anchor}[\[FN26\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F26)

Organizations representing commercial fishermen in 1994 issued a report
that called on Congress to give NMFS the authority **\*975** to modify
actions that would damage important fishery habitat and to direct the
agency to treat the protection of habitats as one of its primary
missions. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B27
.anchor}[\[FN27\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F27) Also in 1994, the
National Academy of Sciences published recommendations for improving
fisheries management, including a recommendation that NMFS and the
Councils be empowered to protect habitat needed to sustain fisheries
resources. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B28
.anchor}[\[FN28\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F28)

These cries for Congress to give more authority to NMFS to influence
projects that would degrade fish habitat were inspired by a growing body
of evidence that fish habitat destruction and degradation were
contributing to decreasing fish stocks, resulting in decreasing economic
benefit to the nation. The 1991- 1993 Habitat Protection Activity
Report, published in 1994 by NMFS, provided several examples of
declining fisheries and habitat degradation:

Since 1982, commercial landings of fish and shellfish in the Southeast
Atlantic states and Gulf of Mexico have decreased forty-two percent.

Oyster landings are ninety percent below historic levels in the
Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound.

Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs have declined seventy-
five to eighty-four percent from historic levels, due mainly to dams
that impede the migration of sea-bound smolts and returning adults.

California\'s natural salmon runs have been reduced by sixty-five
percent in twenty years.

In 1974, about twenty-five percent of shellfish beds in the United
States were closed to harvesting due to sewage contamination.

**\*976** In Texas, over thirty-three percent of its approximately one
million acres of coastal marshes may have been lost between the
mid-1950s and mid- 1970s.

In Louisiana marshes, land loss rates approaching sixty miles per year
have been observed due to canal dredging and upland flood control levees
on the Mississippi River, among other factors. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B29
.anchor}[\[FN29\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F29)

An October 1994 NMFS Habitat Protection Task Force workshop discussed
the legal and structural challenges faced by the agency in effectively
conserving fish habitat in order to ensure sustainable fisheries. The
workshop participants identified the absence of a clear legal mandate
for the conservation of fish habitat as contributing to the \"general
failure of to act as a strong advocate for the conservation of important
fish habitat (.)\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B30
.anchor}[\[FN30\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F30) Further, according
to workshop participants, this lack of statutory authority has
historically compromised NMFS\' ability to work effectively with other
federal agencies in influencing projects that could harm fish habitat.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B31
.anchor}[\[FN31\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F31) The workshop
participants also reviewed existing statutes to determine whether they
provided NMFS with sufficient authority to carry out fish habitat
conservation. The participants found that only the Federal Power Act
gives NMFS such authority. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B32
.anchor}[\[FN32\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F32) Finally, some
workshop participants suggested that the MFCMA should include a new
process for interagency consultations where federal actions might affect
fish habitat. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B33
.anchor}[\[FN33\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F33)

**\*977** B. Congressional Response To Fish Habitat Loss And Degradation

Congress responded to the numerous calls for increased conservation of
fish habitat when it amended the MFCMA on October 11, 1996.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B34
.anchor}[\[FN34\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F34) The re- authorized
law, also called the Sustainable Fisheries Act, cited the importance of
long-term protection of EFH in its opening \"findings\" section.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B35
.anchor}[\[FN35\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F35) One of the purposes
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was to \"promote the protection of essential
fish habitat in the review of projects conducted under federal permits,
licenses, or other authorities that have or have the potential to affect
such habitat. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B36
.anchor}[\[FN36\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F36) Although critics of
NMFS feel that the agency has applied the EFH policy to \"broad
categories\" that in the end will \"inevitably impose land use
restrictions with economic impacts,\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B37
.anchor}[\[FN37\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F37) Congress clearly
intended to give the implementing agency latitude to review a wide
variety of projects in virtually all coastal areas where EFH has been
designated.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that fishery management plans should
describe and identify essential fish habitat for each fishery managed
under a plan. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B38
.anchor}[\[FN38\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F38) Plans should also
take steps to minimize \"to the extent practicable\" adverse effects on
EFH from fishing activities [[]{#Document4zzFN_B39
.anchor}[\[FN39\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F39) and identify actions
to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B40
.anchor}[\[FN40\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F40)

**\*978** The Magnuson-Stevens Act lays out the concrete measures to be
taken by the Secretary and the Councils to describe and identify EFH and
to consult with federal agencies regarding activities that may adversely
affect EFH. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B41
.anchor}[\[FN41\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F41) The Secretary is
charged with establishing guidelines to assist the Councils in the
description and identification of EFH in fishery management plans and to
consider actions to conserve and enhance EFH within six months of the
date of enactment of the Act. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B42
.anchor}[\[FN42\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F42) The Secretary is
also directed to create a schedule for the amendment of fishery
management plans to include the identification of EFH, and to provide
each Council with recommendations and information to assist Councils in
the identification of EFH, adverse impacts on EFH, and actions that
should be considered to conserve and enhance EFH. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B43
.anchor}[\[FN43\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F43) In addition, the
Secretary is directed to review programs administered by the Department
of Commerce and ensure that any relevant programs further the
conservation and enhancement of EF, and is required to coordinate with
and provide information to other federal agencies for the same purpose.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B44
.anchor}[\[FN44\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F44)

Under the Act, federal agencies and the Councils have discrete
obligations. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B45
.anchor}[\[FN45\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F45) Each federal agency
must consult with the Secretary regarding any action \"authorized,
funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or
undertaken\" that may adversely affect EFH identified by the Councils.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B46
.anchor}[\[FN46\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F46) **\*979** Federal
agencies must consult with the Secretary even if their action is not
located in EFH, but may adversely affect EFH. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B47
.anchor}[\[FN47\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber46)

Each Council \"may comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary
and any federal or state agency concerning any activity authorized,
funded, undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken,
by any Federal or State Agency\" that may affect the habitat, including
the EFH, of a fishery under the Council\'s authority.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B48
.anchor}[\[FN48\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F48) In addition, each
Council must comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and
any federal or state agency regarding activities that, in the view of
the Council, are likely to substantially affect the habitat or EFH of an
anadromous fishery under the Council\'s authority.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B49
.anchor}[\[FN49\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F49) If the Secretary
determines, based on information received from a Council or federal or
state agency or other sources, that an activity would adversely affect
EFH, the Secretary shall recommend to the federal or state agency in
question measures that can be undertaken to conserve such habitat.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B50
.anchor}[\[FN50\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F50)

Within thirty days of receiving a recommendation from the Secretary, a
federal agency must provide a detailed response in writing to the
Secretary and relevant Council, including \"a description of measures
proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the
impact of the activity on such habitat.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B51
.anchor}[\[FN51\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F51) If this response
\"is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Secretary,\" the
federal agency must explain why it does not intend to follow the
recommendations. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B52
.anchor}[\[FN52\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F52) Although Councils
and NMFS can comment on activities or proposed activities of state and
federal agencies, only federal agencies (as opposed to state agencies)
need to respond to **\*980** NMFS or Council comments.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B53
.anchor}[\[FN53\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F53) Although the
omission of a requirement in the Magnuson-Stevens Act for state agencies
to respond exempts a large category of coastal zone activities from the
EFH consultation process, many other coastal activities that occur in
state waters require federal permits or approvals, and these activities
create the opportunity for an EFH consultation. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B54
.anchor}[\[FN54\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F54) Although state
agencies do not ever have to consult with NMFS, even on actions in bays
or estuaries, NMFS must provide EFH conservation recommendations on
those state actions that would adversely affect EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B55
.anchor}[\[FN55\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F55)

Some federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, provide
state environmental agencies with the authority to issue permits for
pollution discharges. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B56
.anchor}[\[FN56\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F56) This delegation of
authority raises the question of whether state agencies that issue
permits pursuant to federal laws for activities that may adversely
affect EFH are instigating federal actions (requiring EFH consultation)
or state actions (not requiring EFH consultation). According to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, only federal agencies have to consult with the
NMFS regarding activities that may adversely affect EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B57
.anchor}[\[FN57\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F57) If a state
environmental agency had been given authority to grant permits pursuant
to a federal law like the CWA prior to the 1996 amendments to the
Magnuson- Stevens Act, then that state agency would not be subject to
consultation. However, if NMFS identifies state actions that may damage
fish habitat, then NMFS must provide conservation recommendations to the
state. In addition, agreements between federal and state agencies that
provide state agencies the authority to issue permits pursuant to
federal laws are reviewed periodically and are sometimes upgraded
**\*981** to meet new legislative and regulatory goals. When a federal
agency undertakes a periodic review of a federally delegated program, it
must consult with NMFS if its action may serve to adversely affect EFH.
This consultation gives NMFS the opportunity to request more stringent
standards and reporting.

II\. NMFS\' Interim Final Rule On Essential Fish Habitat

On April 23, 1997, NMFS, which is the agency authorized to implement the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, published proposed rules to implement the EFH
language. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B58
.anchor}[\[FN58\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F58) On December 19,
1997, NMFS published interim final rules to implement EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B59
.anchor}[\[FN59\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F59) In addition, NMFS
published a document providing technical guidance to be used in
implementing the EFH requirements. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B60
.anchor}[\[FN60\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F60) This section reviews
aspects of the interim final rule (IFR) that are relevant to activities
in the coastal zone. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B61
.anchor}[\[FN61\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F61)

A. Definitions

The IFR contains several definitions that elaborate upon concepts that
appear (and in some cases do not appear) in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
First, the definition of EFH that appears in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
clarified. The word \"waters\" is defined to include \"aquatic areas and
their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties\" that
are **\*982** currently used by fish or that historically have been used
by fish. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B62
.anchor}[\[FN62\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F62) Such a definition of
waters is in sharp contrast to that found in Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, which focuses on \"navigable waters\" as \"waters of the
United States\" and through court interpretation has come to include
wetlands adjacent to interstate rivers and streams and coastal waters as
waters of the United States. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B63
.anchor}[\[FN63\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F63)

The technical guidance published by NMFS elaborates that aquatic areas
formerly occupied by a species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
should only be identified as EFH if those areas are presently waters
rather than drained or filled areas that constitute dry land.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B64
.anchor}[\[FN64\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F64) Although the
exclusion of dry land offers consolation to coastal stakeholders who
might fear that programs that had altered aquatic areas could be subject
to modification, the Councils\' ability to identify areas formerly
occupied by species as EFH does allow aquatic areas degraded by coastal
activities to be regulated under the EFH rules. The term \"substrate,\"
which also is part of the definition of EFH in the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
is defined to include structures lying underwater and associated
biological communities. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B65
.anchor}[\[FN65\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F65) According to the
technical guidance provided by NMFS, such structures could include
objects entirely or partially underwater, such as jetties.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B66
.anchor}[\[FN66\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F66)

The term \"adverse effect\" is defined to mean \"any impact which
reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B67
.anchor}[\[FN67\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F67) These adverse
impacts can include direct contamination or physical disruption of
habitat, indirect impacts such as loss of prey, and individual,
cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.
[]{#Document4zzFN_B68 .anchor}**\*983**[[\[
FN68\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F68) This broad definition allows
the identification of a wide variety of coastal activities as possibly
causing adverse effects to EFH.

In addition, the definition section of the IFR introduces the concept of
\"habitat areas of particular concern,\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B69
.anchor}[\[FN69\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F69) which are described
in a later section of the rule. The IFR directs that fishery management
plans should identify such habitat areas within EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B70
.anchor}[\[FN70\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F70) Before a Council
identifies a habitat area of particular concern, the Council must ensure
that one or more of the following criteria are met: (1) the habitat must
provide an important ecological function; (2) the habitat must be
sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; (3) development
activities must represent a current or potential stress for the habitat
type; and (4) the habitat type must be rare. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B71
.anchor}[\[FN71\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F71) It is likely that
during the consultation process, NMFS will try most strenuously to
ensure that its habitat conservation recommendations are acted upon when
habitat areas of particular concern might be affected by an activity
conducted by a federal agency.

B. Description and Identification

The IFR presents a four-level classification scheme for describing and
identifying EFH. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B72
.anchor}[\[FN72\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F72) These
classifications, ranging from the lowest level of detail to the highest
level of detail, are as follows:

Level 1\--Presence/absence data is available for some or all portions of
the geographic range of the species.

Level 2\--Habitat-related densities of the species are available.

**\*984** Level 3\--Growth, reproduction, or survival rates within
habitats are available.

Level 4\--Production rates by habitat are available.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B73
.anchor}[\[FN73\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F73)

The scope of this paper does not permit an in-depth description of the
four levels, although application of this classification scheme to a
long-studied New Jersey estuary reveals the difficulty of using
information beyond Level 2 to identify EFH. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B74
.anchor}[\[FN74\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F74) In general, EFH
identification efforts conducted by the Councils resulted in broad areas
of the EEZ and state waters being identified as EFH for at least one
species. More research on fish population dynamics and habitat
requirements of managed species is needed to refine preliminary EFH
identification through Level 3 and 4 information. This initial broad EFH
identification has been criticized by the seafood industry and
developers as too sweeping and thus creating a burdensome regulatory
environment where any activity anywhere will affect EFH for some
species. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B75
.anchor}[\[FN75\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F75),
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B76
.anchor}[\[FN76\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F76)

If degraded or inaccessible habitat that has contributed to reduced
yields of a species or assemblage can be reversed through restoration
activities, such as improving fish passage, removing contaminants, or
increasing water flows, then EFH should include such habitats.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B77
.anchor}[\[FN77\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F77) The IFR does not
specify how far upstream such EFH identification could occur. This
language serves to encourage habitat restoration activities in the
coastal zone.

**\*985** C. Non-Fishing Activities

The IFR directly identifies non-fishing activities (which often take
place in the coastal zone) that may adversely affect EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B78
.anchor}[\[FN78\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F78) Broad categories
identified by the IFR include \"dredging, fill, excavation, mining,
impoundment, discharge, water diversions, thermal additions, actions
that contribute to non- point source pollution and sedimentation,
introduction of potentially hazardous materials, introduction of exotic
species, and the conversion of aquatic habitat that may eliminate,
diminish, or disrupt the functions of EFH.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B79
.anchor}[\[FN79\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F79) The IFR requires
that fishery management plans should describe how such activities may
cause adverse effects to EFH for managed species by using maps and other
analyses. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B80
.anchor}[\[FN80\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F80) In addition, fishery
management plans should analyze, to the extent practicable, how
non-fishing activities, as well as fishing activities, affect habitat
function on an ecosystem or watershed scale. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B81
.anchor}[\[FN81\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F81) The technical
guidance document published by NMFS further elaborates on the importance
of identifying non-fishing impacts that do not result in immediate
habitat damage, but rather increase the likelihood of potential damage.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B82
.anchor}[\[FN82\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F82) For example,
impairment of floodplain function over a period of decades may not
damage stream habitat until a flood occurs. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B83
.anchor}[\[FN83\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F83) Likewise,
interruption of longshore transport of sand with structures such as
jetties may not impact nearshore habitat until a storm occurs.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B84
.anchor}[\[FN84\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F84)

D. Conservation And Enhancement

The IFR makes several recommendations regarding general conservation and
enhancement provisions that should appear in fishery management plans.
For example, the IFR **\*986** states generally that non-water dependent
actions \" should not be located in EFH if such actions may have adverse
impacts on EFH.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B85
.anchor}[\[FN85\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F85) In addition, impacts
of activities that may significantly affect EFH should be minimized or
replaced by less environmentally harmful alternatives when available.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B86
.anchor}[\[FN86\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F86) Disposal of
materials such as sludge or industrial waste that would destroy or
degrade EFH should be avoided. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B87
.anchor}[\[FN87\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F87) Finally, the IFR
directs that Councils, through their fishery management plans, may
provide options to conserve or enhance EFH, including enhancement of
rivers, streams, and coastal areas; enhancement of water quality and
quantity; use of watershed analysis and planning; and habitat creation.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B88
.anchor}[\[FN88\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber51)

The technical guidance published by NMFS goes into a great deal of
detail to describe two coastal activities that may adversely affect EFH:
construction and sand and gravel mining. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B89
.anchor}[\[FN89\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F89) According to the
NMFS technical guidance, construction in coastal areas can cause
turbidity plumes [[]{#Document4zzFN_B90
.anchor}[\[FN90\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F90) in waters, which
impair natural processes important to aquatic species.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B91
.anchor}[\[FN91\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F91) Dredging activities
associated with construction can re-suspend buried pollutants such as
heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, and other toxins.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B92
.anchor}[\[FN92\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F92) Filling activities
associated with construction projects can directly reduce biotic
diversity. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B93
.anchor}[\[FN93\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F93) Sand and gravel
mining causes similar turbidity and re- suspension impacts and can also
result in the direct loss of **\*987** infaunal benthic organisms
important to fisheries species. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B94
.anchor}[\[FN94\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F94) The technical
guidance document goes on to provide a variety of suggested conservation
and enhancement measures that could counter some of these impacts.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B95
.anchor}[\[FN95\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F95)

E. Consultation

The IFR elaborates on the consultation process described in the
Magnuson- Stevens Act by distinguishing between project-specific and
programmatic consultations. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B96
.anchor}[\[FN96\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F96) Project-specific
consultations are appropriate, according to the IFR, when critical
decisions are made at a project- implementation stage or when
sufficiently detailed EFH information does not exist to allow for a
programmatic consultation. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B97
.anchor}[\[FN97\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F97) A project-specific
consultation could take the form of an exchange of correspondence
regarding the excavation of 0.5 acre of emergent wetland as part of a
unique, stand-alone drainage-improvement project. Programmatic
consultations can be requested by federal agencies, and if NMFS
determines that all concerns about adverse effects to EFH can be
addressed at such a programmatic level, NMFS will develop EFH
conservation recommendations that cover all projects implemented under
that program. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B98
.anchor}[\[FN98\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F98)

The NMFS technical guidance document provides an example of a
programmatic consultation where a grant is given to municipalities to
construct boat ramps. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B99
.anchor}[\[FN99\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F99) If the grant program
requires certain criteria for each boat ramp application, such as
habitat avoidance measures and design standards, then NMFS could address
EFH requirements through a programmatic consultation by reviewing the
standard criteria described in the evaluation, along with possible
additional information **\*988** such as the location of the ramps and
the history of the program. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B100
.anchor}[\[FN100\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F100) The agency could
review this information, make EFH conservation recommendations, and wait
for a response from the granting program. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B101
.anchor}[\[FN101\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F101) Upon notification
that the program will implement these recommendations, the programmatic
consultation would be complete, with the understanding that any proposal
to fund a ramp that does not conform to the granting program\'s criteria
and EFH recommendations will require project-specific consultation.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B102
.anchor}[\[FN102\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F102)

The IFR also specifies that NMFS encourages the use of existing
consultation and environmental review procedures where appropriate to
meet EFH consultation requirements. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B103
.anchor}[\[FN103\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F103) Consultation,
coordination, and review procedures found in statutes such as the
National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and Federal Power Act can be
used as long as the existing process meets the following three criteria:

1\. The existing process must provide NMFS with timely notification of
actions that may adversely affect EFH. The federal action agency should
notify NMFS according to the same time frames for notification as in the
existing process. However, NMFS should have at least sixty days notice
prior to a final decision on an action, or at least ninety days if the
action would result in substantial adverse impacts.

2\. Notification must include an assessment of the impacts of the
proposed action on EFH that meets established requirements for EFH
assessments. If the EFH Assessment is contained in another document,
that section of the document must be clearly identified as the EFH
Assessment.

**\*989** 3. NMFS must have made a finding that the existing process
satisfies the requirements of Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B104
.anchor}[\[FN104\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F104)

The IFR also describes the General Concurrence (GC) process, wherein
NMFS, in collaboration with the relevant Council(s), identifies several
types of federal actions that may adversely affect EFH but where no
further consultation is generally required because NMFS has determined
that such actions will only result in minimal adverse individual and
cumulative effects. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B105
.anchor}[\[FN105\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F105) For example,
according to the NMFS technical guidance, if the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers proposes to issue a General Permit for the placement of
replacement docks in coastal waters, NMFS may review the proposal for
adverse effects to EFH and find that it would be appropriate for a GC if
certain criteria such as location and size standards were met.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B106
.anchor}[\[FN106\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F106) A proposed GC
would be subject to a public review process.

Finally, the IFR describes requirements for an EFH Assessment of a
federal action that may adversely affect EFH and is not covered by a GC.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B107
.anchor}[\[FN107\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber53) An assessment
could also include the results of an on-site inspection to evaluate the
habitat and possible effects of the project and an analysis of
alternatives to the proposed action. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B108
.anchor}[\[FN108\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F108) If a federal
agency\'s written response to NMFS EFH conservation recommendations is
inconsistent with those recommendations, the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries (the \"Head\" of NMFS) may request a meeting with the Head of
the federal action agency and may **\*990** involve the relevant Council
in these discussions. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B109
.anchor}[\[FN109\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F109) This is the extent
of NMFS\' ability to enforce its conservation recommendations.

III\. Comparing The Magnuson-Stevens Act\'s EFA Scheme And The
Endangered Species Act\'s Critical Habitat Scheme

The NMFS technical guidance document includes an appendix describing the
relationships between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). [[]{#Document4zzFN_B110
.anchor}[\[FN110\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F110) Both statutes have
similar qualities. For example, they both mandate the identification of
important habitat, specify effects to habitat, and create consultation
processes. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B111
.anchor}[\[FN111\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F111) The equivalent of
EFH in the ESA is \"critical habitat,\" which includes areas occupied by
a species at the time of an ESA listing as well as unoccupied areas that
are deemed essential for the conservation of that species.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B112
.anchor}[\[FN112\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F112)

The concept of \"effect\" in the ESA is encompassed by four regulatory
categories: (1) no effect; (2) may affect, not likely to adversely
affect; (3) may affect, likely to adversely affect; and (4) jeopardy.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B113
.anchor}[\[FN113\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F113) There are also
four regulatory categories of \"affect\" in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B114
.anchor}[\[FN114\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber54) The Act uses
the term \"may adversely affect\" as the trigger for consultation under
section 305(b)(2) and uses the term \"may affect\" as the trigger for
Council comments under section 305(b)(3), \"adversely affect\" triggers
NMFS recommendations under Section 305(b)(4)(A). [[]{#Document4zzFN_B115
.anchor}[\[FN115\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F115) In addition, the
Interim Final Rule uses the wording \"no more than minimal adverse
effects\" to support the use of the General Concurrence process and the
wording \"substantial **\*991** adverse effects\" to support the use of
expanded consultation. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B116
.anchor}[\[FN116\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F116) In the
consultation continuum, abbreviated consultation encompasses effects
falling between the previous two extremes. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B117
.anchor}[\[FN117\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F117)

As far as consultation recommendations are concerned, under section
7(a)(2) of the ESA, federal agencies must, in consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce, ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the
existence of endangered or threatened species managed by the Secretary
(through NMFS or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), or adversely modify
critical habitat. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B118
.anchor}[\[FN118\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F118) The action agency
must make an initial determination of whether a proposed activity will
affect a listed species, and if the activity may affect such a species,
consultation is required. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B119
.anchor}[\[FN119\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F119) If an action
agency does not comply with NMFS conservation recommendations from an
ESA consultation process, they are in violation of section 7(a)(2).
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B120
.anchor}[\[FN120\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F120) Under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, action agencies that do not comply with EFH
recommendations are not in violation, but they do have to explain their
reasons for not following the recommendations. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B121
.anchor}[\[FN121\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F121)

In addition, only federal agencies are required to respond to EFH
consultations by the NMFS. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B122
.anchor}[\[FN122\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F122) The critical
habitat provisions of the ESA apply at least in part to state and
private actions, as well as federal actions. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B123
.anchor}[\[FN123\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F123) That is, the ESA
can restrict development on private or state land and affect permitting
**\*992** decisions by state agencies through its Section 9 prohibition
on the take of ESA listed species. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B124
.anchor}[\[FN124\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F124)

IV\. Case Study: EFH Activities In The Gulf Of Mexico

All regional fishery management councils were required to amend their
fishery management plans to include EFH provisions two years after the
enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B125
.anchor}[\[FN125\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F125) The Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council completed its \"generic amendment\"
(Amendment) for addressing EFH requirements in its seven fishery
management plans in October 1998. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B126
.anchor}[\[FN126\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F126) The following
describes the amendment and the EFH related activities that have been
spawned by the Amendment. Specifically, we examine EFH correspondence
between NMFS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Gulf of Mexico
Minerals Management Service\'s EFH Programmatic Consultation. These
activities help indicate what kind of effect the EFH policy is having on
coastal activities in the Gulf region.

A. The Gulf Of Mexico Council\'s EFH Amendment

The twenty-six representative managed species for which EFH is
identified and described in the Amendment account for about thirty-three
percent of the species managed by the Council and range from shrimp and
spiny lobsters to snappers, groupers and mackerel.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B127
.anchor}[\[FN127\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F127) These species are
the most important species in terms of commercial and recreational
harvest and are the species for which the Council has the most **\*993**
information regarding habitat associations and use.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B128
.anchor}[\[FN128\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F128) The limited
selection of species managed by the Council highlights the problem of
insufficient scientific data to support the identification of EFH for
many managed species. The Amendment created no new regulations regarding
fishing activities (over which the Council has authority) and
non-fishing activities (over which the Council has no direct authority).
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B129
.anchor}[\[FN129\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F129) The Marine Fish
Conservation Network criticized the Amendment for its failure to further
regulate fishing gear and to outline an aggressive strategy for
addressing non-fishing activities that affect EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B130
.anchor}[\[FN130\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F130) In addition, the
Council\'s EFH Amendment was only partially approved by the Secretary
because it did not describe and identify EFH for all species and life
stages and it did not adequately assess the effects of fishing on EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B131
.anchor}[\[FN131\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F131)

The Amendment identified EFH as \"all of the estuarine systems of the
Gulf of Mexico,\" that, due to the extensive distribution of life stages
of managed species and to NMFS guidance, have been deemed risk adverse
in the face of scientific uncertainty. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B132
.anchor}[\[FN132\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F132) The Amendment also
described habitat characteristics by state, as well as \"EFH Alterations
of Particular Concern\" by state. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B133
.anchor}[\[FN133\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F133) Almost forty pages
of the Amendment were devoted to a description of the variety of
possible non-fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH,
compared **\*994** to less than ten pages devoted to fishing activities
that may adversely affect EFH. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B134
.anchor}[\[FN134\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F134)

In response to the various non-fishing related activities, the Amendment
included an extensive list of specific conservation recommendations by
project type (docks and piers, navigation channels, housing
developments, etc.). [[]{#Document4zzFN_B135
.anchor}[\[FN135\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F135) Prior to the lists
of specific recommendations, the Amendment highlighted some general
factors that should be considered in permitting situations.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B136
.anchor}[\[FN136\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F136) The Amendment also
included a list of general types of habitat areas of particular concern
(fish migration routes, estuarine habitats with submerged vegetation,
areas with substrates of high diversity or vertical relief, etc.), as
well as specific geographic areas, many of which already have been
designated as reserves (for example, the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and the Dry Tortugas). [[]{#Document4zzFN_B137
.anchor}[\[FN137\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F137)

The Council\'s documentation of non-fishing related activities that may
adversely affect EFH is extensive and represents a severe management
challenge for those striving to protect fish habitat from the cumulative
impacts of human activity in the coastal zone. The enormity of the
challenge at hand for habitat advocates is exemplified by a statistic
from the Amendment that suggests that between 1981 and 1996, NMFS
received for review more than 50,485 development proposals for the five
states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B138
.anchor}[\[FN138\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F138) A sub- sample of
7,848 of these development proposals involved **\*995** more than
925,181 acres of various fish habitats. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B139
.anchor}[\[FN139\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F139) The lack of direct
regulatory authority for NMFS or the Councils over fish habitat in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act sets the stage for uncertainty regarding the
ability of habitat advocates to protect the hundreds of thousands of
acres of habitats that are certain to be affected by a wide variety of
non-fishing related activities in the future.

B. Initial EFH Correspondence Between The Army Corps And NMFS

Many correspondences have been exchanged between the offices of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in the Gulf of Mexico region and NMFS\'
Southeast Regional Office since the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council passed its EFH Amendment. This section highlights some of the
content and language found in these documents and indicates how the EFH
policy may be affecting Army Corps activities in the coastal zone.

An August 1999 draft environmental assessment (EA) issued by the Army
Corps for a project to widen and restore bay depth in two areas in
Matagorda Bay, Texas, included EFH consultation language.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B140
.anchor}[\[FN140\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F140) The project,
scheduled to begin in October 1999, included two components designed to
provide an \"interim solution\" to safety concerns: (1) widening the
south side of the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway for approximately
10,575 feet, which includes dredging to allow additional space for shoal
material to accumulate before it impacts navigation; and (2) restoring
bay bottom contours to remove obstructions to navigation created by the
Army Corps during previous channel dredging projects.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B141
.anchor}[\[FN141\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F141)

**\*996** These actions were estimated by the Army Corps in its EA to
affect EFH \"minimally and temporarily\" because of the localized and
short-term turbidity caused by the project and the project\'s relatively
small scale when compared to the overall bay. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B142
.anchor}[\[FN142\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F142) The EA did not
propose mitigation for the project\'s impacts, and the EA stated that
the project\'s safety improvements and habitat enhancement through
disposal of dredged materials \"far outweigh any potential impacts to
habitat for managed species.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B143
.anchor}[\[FN143\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F143) The draft EA also
identified species (including various shrimp species and red drum)
managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council that may occur
in the project area and went on to state that EFH for these species may
occur in the project area and may be affected by the dredging associated
with the project. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B144
.anchor}[\[FN144\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber58) The National
Marine Fisheries Service concurred with the EA\'s assessment that this
dredging project would have minimal effect on EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B145
.anchor}[\[FN145\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F145)

Another example of EFH consultation correspondence between NMFS and the
Army Corps regarded a request by the Louisiana Land and Exploration
Company to dredge more than 80,000 cubic yards of material to access a
well site in Louisiana. According to a May 25, 1999 letter from the NMFS
Southeast Regional Office to the New Orleans District office of the Army
Corps, this proposed project, which was located in an area identified as
EFH by the previously described EFH Amendment, would adversely impact
EFH and federally managed fishery resources for several reasons.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B146
.anchor}[\[FN146\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F146) Based on a May 17,
1999 field investigation by a NMFS biologist of the proposed location,
the project area\'s wetlands were found to provide **\*997** nursery and
foraging habitat for a variety of economically important fish including
flounder, menhaden, shrimps, and blue crab. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B147
.anchor}[\[FN147\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F147) The project, which
would impact more than twenty acres of marsh, did not meet the criteria
for authorization under the Army Corps\' Programmatic General Permit
regulations, which limit impacts for oil and gas activities to 3.5
acres. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B148
.anchor}[\[FN148\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F148) Finally, a
Geological Review Meeting (GRM) had not been conducted to determine
whether well site locations that would have less environmental impact
were available. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B149
.anchor}[\[FN149\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F149) The letter
recommended that a permit for the project should not be issued and that
the several conservation issues should be considered prior to final
authorization for the dredging project. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B150
.anchor}[\[FN150\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F150)

In response, the Army Corps sent a letter to NMFS stating that it
intended to approve the applicant\'s request under the programmatic
general permit and that the Army Corps would require no mitigation.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B151
.anchor}[\[FN151\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F151) In support of this
conclusion, the Army Corps letter stated that a GRM was convened after
the letter from NMFS was written, and that the GRM was followed by a
field trip to explore alternative access routes from the project
location. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B152
.anchor}[\[FN152\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F152) The field trip
indicated \"no other less damaging feasible alternatives, therefore the
original location was recommended.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B153
.anchor}[\[FN153\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F153) The letter
indicated that an alternative form of dredging would be used and that
the project, as modified, \"**\*998** would not impact emergent marsh
habitat.\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B154
.anchor}[\[FN154\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F154) The Army Corps
provided this response in less than thirty days, and NMFS determined
that the response addressed its recommendations because the proposed
project was revised and impacts from the project were reduced to where
they were considered minimal. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B155
.anchor}[\[FN155\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F155) With the revision,
NMFS authorized the project through a programmatic general permit.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B156
.anchor}[\[FN156\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F156)

It seems, based on the preceding exchanges of correspondence, that NMFS
has been satisfied with Army Corps responses and that the Army Corps has
been willing to revise projects in response to EFH concerns. However,
the responsiveness of the Army Corps and other agencies to NMFS habitat
recommendations should be closely monitored, and NMFS will probably have
to pick its fights carefully due to the limiting language of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which does not give the NMFS veto power over
projects. Habitat advocates can only hope that the mandatory exchange of
habitat-related correspondence will help managers within the Army Corps
and other agencies to be more sensitive to habitat issues, even if the
correspondence does not always result in substantive changes to proposed
projects that may adversely affect EFH.

C. The Gulf Of Mexico Minerals Management Service\'s Programmatic
Consultation

A July 4, 1999 letter from the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to the
National Marine Fisheries Service sought to initiate EFH Programmatic
Consultation for petroleum development activities in the Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B157
.anchor}[\[FN157\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F157) This Programmatic
Consultation represents one of the first comprehensive attempts by NMFS
to proactively negotiate an agreement with a federal agency that broadly
considers as **\*999** many possible adverse effects as possible to EFH
due to that agency\'s activities. This section discusses the
Programmatic Consultation and evaluates its potential effectiveness in
protecting fish habitat in the Gulf of Mexico from adverse effects of
mining activities in the coastal zone, specifically on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS).

According to the acknowledgment letter sent by the NMFS Southeast
Regional Office, the Programmatic Consultation request addresses
\"pipeline rights-of- way, plans for exploration and production, and
platform removal on the. . . (OCS).\" [[]{#Document4zzFN_B158
.anchor}[\[FN158\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber60) The letter
from NMFS found that the MMS-prepared EFH Assessment was \"an acceptable
evaluation of potential adverse impacts\" and further found that the
Assessment and supporting documents, along with \"NMFS review of OCS
exploration and production activities and impacts,\" supported the
determination that a Programmatic Consultation \"provides an appropriate
mechanism to evaluate EFH impacts of program activities.\"
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B159
.anchor}[\[FN159\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F159) However, the
letter did indicate that NMFS had concerns because EFH consultation
associated with NMFS review of National Environmental Policy documents
had not been addressed and because a portion of the Assessment\'s
discussion of oil spill impacts was insufficient.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B160
.anchor}[\[FN160\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F160)

Implementation of the Programmatic Consultation, according to the
letter, revolves around several conservation recommendations by MMS.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B161
.anchor}[\[FN161\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F161) Six additional
conservation recommendations **\*1000** were proposed by NMFS, which
mostly detailed additional protections for bottom habitats when certain
already-existing environmental stipulations are made part of permits.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B162
.anchor}[\[FN162\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F162) The letter
concludes that if the MMS adopts NMFS\' conservation recommendations, no
further EFH consultation would be required for actions covered by the
Programmatic Consultation, except for cases involving proposals for some
pipelines carrying liquid hydrocarbons, which would require program-
specific EFH consultations. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B163
.anchor}[\[FN163\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F163)

This Programmatic Consultation is a good example of a proactive attempt
by NMFS and a federal agency to plan for the conservation of fish
habitat when agency activities present adverse impacts to the habitat.
The Programmatic Consultation, which is a thirteen page document
attached to the letter, goes into great detail describing the impacts of
Gulf of Mexico oil and gas operations on bottom habitat.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B164
.anchor}[\[FN164\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F164) For example, heavy
anchors, chains and pipelines have direct impacts on the bottom, and
explosives are used to sever pilings during the removal of conventional
platforms. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B165
.anchor}[\[FN165\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F165) This collaborative
effort is likely to produce better safeguards for EFH than the exchange
of letters typified in the above Army Corps examples, which seem likely
to result in little or no project alterations to conserve EFH. However,
it must be acknowledged that in some cases it is likely that NMFS will
be very influential in individual consultations and that in some cases
an action agency may not follow NMFS conservation recommendations made
through programmatic consultations.

**\*1001** Conclusion

The EFH policy introduced through the Magnuson-Stevens Act is somewhat
limited in its ability to directly alter coastal zone activities carried
out by state agencies, but the policy can be a powerful tool to
introduce habitat conservation measures into federal coastal zone
activities when the federal agency in question is willing to listen to
and work with NMFS. In addition, third parties, citizens, and private
entities can play a crucial role in the review process by expressing
their concerns for EFH conservation because the EFH process requires
that the action agencies and the public are aware of the consequences of
actions on federally managed fishery species. This awareness may inspire
private parties to express their desire that agency activities should
serve to conserve rather than degrade EFH.

Overall, the EFH policy represents a significant step forward in the
conservation of fish habitat through its legal recognition of fish
habitat as not only a valid basis for fishery management efforts but
also an important factor to consider when weighing the costs and
benefits of coastal zone management projects. In addition, the
information generated through the EFH identification and management
process (for example, the creation of the Gulf of Mexico Council\'s
Amendment, which provides an exhaustive list of possible non- fishing
impacts to fish habitat) will be extremely useful to future habitat
conservation initiatives. Although the EFH policy only mandates
consultations for federal actions and does not give NMFS \"veto power\"
over projects, this policy is an example of incremental growth in the
regulatory process. Consultations can lead to regulations, but only if
the overall management program works.

Whether EFH consultations are taking place as needed is uncertain. Even
though well over 2,000 consultations will have been initiated through
NMFS by the end of 1999, it is likely that federal action agencies are
not consulting with NMFS on every action that may adversely affect EFH,
especially those actions on which NMFS has not commented in the past.
Although NMFS has taken the lead in consultations **\*1002** with
federal agencies, the Councils may not have the staff or expertise to
comment on the full spectrum of non-fishing activities authorized by
state agencies, despite the fact that Council membership includes
representatives from each coastal state. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B166
.anchor}[\[FN166\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F166) Some Councils rely
heavily on NMFS to alert them to actions of concern. However, the Gulf
of Mexico Council has devised detailed guidelines for assessing proposed
activities and determining whether Council comments would be
appropriate. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B167
.anchor}[\[FN167\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F167) If a private party
in the Gulf of Mexico region felt that the Council should comment on a
proposed activity, that party could compare the activity to the criteria
described in the guidelines for assessing activities when bringing the
proposed activity to the Council\'s attention. Federal agencies have a
legal obligation to initiate consultation with NMFS, although if
agencies fail to initiate consultation when their activities might
adversely affect EFH, NMFS must still provide conservation
recommendations. However, it is important to remember that there is no
legal or administrative means for NMFS or the Councils to force action
agencies to adopt conservation recommendations.

As of this writing, no lawsuits have been filed under the EFH provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to address coastal zone management issues.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not contain a citizens suit provision,
although the Act does allow judicial review of regulations implementing
fishery management plans within thirty days of promulgation.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B168
.anchor}[\[FN168\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F168) The only open case
as of this writing alleges that the Secretary of Commerce and five
fishery management councils (including the Gulf of Mexico Council)
failed to adequately address the impacts of fishing practices on EFH.
[[]{#Document4zzFN_B169
.anchor}[\[FN169\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzSDUNumber62) It is unclear
whether coastal interests who either desire more restrictions on coastal
activities to protect EFH or seek fewer regulatory burdens will pursue
legal action. However, a party that could show that it **\*1003** was
harmed could probably sue NMFS for failing to provide conservation
recommendations regarding an action that could adversely affect EFH as
directed by section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In
addition, federal agencies could be challenged in court for failing to
consult appropriately with NMFS as directed by section 305(b)(2) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Such suits against federal agencies could invoke
the National Environmental Procedure Act, alleging that environmental
impacts were not fully considered, or the Administrative Procedures Act,
alleging that the action agency\'s decision was arbitrary and capricious
and not in accordance with applicable laws. [[]{#Document4zzFN_B170
.anchor}[\[FN170\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_F170)

A potentially strong tool for protecting EFH from adverse impacts from
non- fishing activities might be the programmatic consultation, which
brings agencies together in a collaborative manner to identify the
spectrum of impacts to EFH from a particular type of coastal activity
and to agree upon conservation measures. Although project-specific
consultations have a great deal of potential to conserve EFH, the
potential of programmatic consultations such as the MMS Programmatic
Consultation is relatively untested. Further efforts to devise other
programmatic consultations should be encouraged by NMFS.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_Fa1
.anchor}[\[FNa1\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_Ba1). Arogram Analyst,
National Marine Fisheries Service\'s Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
where he works with the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program. Mr. Benaka is
the editor of FISH HABITAT: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND REHABILITATION.
M.M.A., University of Rhode Island; B.A., Columbia University. Mr.
Benaka would like to thank Danielle Feuillan, Jon Kurland, Ric
Ruebsamen, Ron Hill, Steve Leathery, and Paul Kibel for their assistance
in the preparation of this article.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_Faa1
.anchor}[\[FNaa1\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_Baa1). CProfessor and
Coordinator of the Graduate Marine Affairs Program, University of Rhode
Island; Secretary and General Counsel, Point Club, a self insurance
cooperative for New England fisherman. Mr. Nixon has been a member of
the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council and is the former Chair,
Conservation Law Foundation of Rhode Island. Mr. Nixon is the author of
numerous articles on marine resources law and a casebook, MARINE AND
COASTAL LAW. J.D., University of Cincinnati; M.M.A., University of Rhode
Island; B.A., Xavier University. Mr. Nixon would like to thank Erin
Bryant for her assistance in the preparation of this article.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F1 .anchor}[\[FN1\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B1).
See [[16 U.S.C. § §
1451]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1451&FindType=L)-[[1465
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1465&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F2 .anchor}[\[FN2\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B2).
See id. § § 1801-1882 (2000).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F3 .anchor}[\[FN3\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B3).
3 Although the CZMA defined the coastal zone narrowly, as initially
drafted, successive re-authorizations gradually expanded the scope of
the law\'s impact to include estuaries, non-point source pollution, and
watershed management issues. The scope of the MFCMA first went beyond
the narrow issues of fish populations, management plans, and enforcement
in 1996 when Congress recognized the fundamental relationship between
habitat and productivity in its re-authorization of the MFCMA. See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F4 .anchor}[\[FN4\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B4).
See Office Of Habitat Protection, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Habitat Protection Activity Report 9 (1994). Percentage is based on
weight.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F5 .anchor}[\[FN5\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B5).
See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F6 .anchor}[\[FN6\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B6).
See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F7 .anchor}[\[FN7\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B7).
See [[16 U.S.C. § §
1801]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1801&FindType=L)-[[1883
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1883&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F8 .anchor}[\[FN8\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B8).
See [[33 U.S.C. § 1342
(1972)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=33USCAS1342&FindType=L)
(these WPCA amendments added the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System, which required permits for any discharge of
pollutants from point sources to navigable waters).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F9 .anchor}[\[FN9\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B9).
Ronald C. Baird, Foreword, in Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat And
Rehabilitation xv (Lee R. Benaka ed., American Fisheries Society 1999)
(hereinafter Benaka, Fish Habitat).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F10
.anchor}[\[FN10\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B10). Eldon V.C.
Greenberg, Essential Fish Habitat: A New Regulatory Hurdle for
Development, 29 Environmental L. Rep. 10463 (1999) (hereinafter
Greenberg, Essential Fish Habitat).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F11
.anchor}[\[FN11\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B11). The Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) is the area of federal waters adjacent to state
waters, extending from three to 200 nautical miles offshore. State
waters extend from the shore to three nautical miles offshore, except
for Texas, Puerto Rico and the West Coast of Florida, whose state waters
extend nine miles offshore. States administer fisheries in state waters,
and the U.S. Department of Commerce administers fisheries in the EEZ,
through the National Marine Fisheries Service. See U.S. Department Of
Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Our Living Oceans 3-5
(1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F12
.anchor}[\[FN12\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B12). As of December 31,
1998, there were 39 federal fishery management plans in place, covering
over 700 species of fish, shellfish, and corals. See U.S. Dep\'t of
Justice, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Of The United
States, 1998 (1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F13
.anchor}[\[FN13\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B13). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1802(10)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1802&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F14
.anchor}[\[FN14\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B14). Telephone Interview
with Jon Kurland, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine
Fisheries Service (Nov. 2, 1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F15
.anchor}[\[FN15\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B15). See U.S. Dep\'t Of
Commerce, Federal Fisheries Agency Adds Nine West Coast Salmon To
Endangered Species List (last modified Mar. 16, 1999) \<http://
www.publicaffairs. noaa.gov/releases99/mar99/ noaa99r115.html\>.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F16
.anchor}[\[FN16\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B16). See discussion
infra Section III.E.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F17
.anchor}[\[FN17\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B17). See Hearing Before
the Subcomm. On Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans of the House
Comm. On Resources (Mar. 9, 2000) (statement of Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F18
.anchor}[\[FN18\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B18). See Philip Roni, et
al., Identification of Essential Fish Habitat for Salmon in the Pacific
Northwest: Initial Efforts, Information Needs, and Future Direction, in
Benaka, Fish Habitat supra note 9, 93 at 101.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F19
.anchor}[\[FN19\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B19). See, e.g., [[42
U.S.C. § §
4321]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS4321&FindType=L)-[[4347
(1970)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS4347&FindType=L).

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber42 .anchor}

[[\[FN20\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B20). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1855(b)(4)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F21
.anchor}[\[FN21\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B21). See Cynthia M.
Sarthou, An Environmentalist\'s Perspective on Essential Fish Habitat,
in Benaka, Fish Habitat supra note 9, 11 at 16-17.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F22
.anchor}[\[FN22\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B22). See Merchant Marine
And Fisheries Comm., U.S.H.R., Coastal Waters In Jeopardy: Reversing The
Decline And Protecting America\'s Coastal Resources 13 (1989).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F23
.anchor}[\[FN23\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B23). Any fishery
management plan or regulation promulgated to implement such a plan
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act shall be consistent with ten
national standards for fishery conservation and management. These
standards include basing conservation and management measures on the
best scientific information available, minimizing cost and avoiding
unnecessary duplication in creating and implementing conservation and
management measures, and promoting safety of human life at sea through
conservation and management measures. Fish habitat is not cited in any
of the ten national standards in the 1996 Magnuson- Stevens Act. See,
e.g., [[16 U.S.C. § 1851
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1851&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F24
.anchor}[\[FN24\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B24). See Sarthou supra
note 21, at 17 (for an overview of additional recommendations made at
this symposium).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F25
.anchor}[\[FN25\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B25). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F26
.anchor}[\[FN26\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B26). See Marine Fish
Conservation Network And Center For Marine Conservation, Missing The
Boat: An Evaluation Of Fishery Management Council Response To The
Sustainable Fisheries Act ii (1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F27
.anchor}[\[FN27\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B27). See Sarthou supra
note 21, at 17.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F28
.anchor}[\[FN28\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B28). See National
Academy Of Sciences, Improving The Management Of U.S. Marine Fisheries
30 (1994).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F29
.anchor}[\[FN29\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B29). See supra note 3.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F30
.anchor}[\[FN30\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B30). American Fisheries
Society, NMFS Habitat Protection Task Force Workshop Draft Meeting
Summary 4 (1994).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F31
.anchor}[\[FN31\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B31). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F32
.anchor}[\[FN32\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B32). The Federal Power
Act provides, among other things, NMFS authority to prescribe fishways,
that is, passageways through and around hydropower structures and other
such structures. See [[16 U.S.C. § 791a
(1988)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS791A&FindType=L).
See also id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F33
.anchor}[\[FN33\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B33). See supra note 30.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F34
.anchor}[\[FN34\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B34). See 16 U.S.C.
S1801(a)(6) (2000).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F35
.anchor}[\[FN35\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B35). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F36
.anchor}[\[FN36\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B36). See id. [[§
1801(b)(7)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1801&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F37
.anchor}[\[FN37\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B37). Handout from
Michelle Desiderio, National Association of HomeBuilders (Aug. 10, 1999)
(on file with author).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F38
.anchor}[\[FN38\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B38). See 16 U.S.C.
S1853(a)(7) (2000).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F39
.anchor}[\[FN39\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B39). The phrase \"to the
extent practicable\" and similar types of phrases are often included in
legislation to allow regulators the option of taking little or no action
in certain situations. For example, regulation of fishing activities to
protect fish habitat. Despite this regulatory safeguard, the sole
lawsuit that has been filed based on the EFH language has focused on
fishing activities, not coastal zone activities. See Plaintiff\'s Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint at 1, American Oceans v.
Daley (District Court for the District of Columbia) (No. 99CV00982GK)
(hereinafter Daley Motion). This complaint is directed toward five of
the eight regional fishery management councils and charges that they did
not \"adequately assess the impacts of fishing on EFH or include
practicable measures to protect EFH.\" Id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F40
.anchor}[\[FN40\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B40). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1853(a)(7)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1853&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F41
.anchor}[\[FN41\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B41). See id. [[§
1855(b)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F42
.anchor}[\[FN42\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B42). See id.
S1855(b)(1)(A).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F43
.anchor}[\[FN43\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B43). See id. See also
[[§
1855(b)(1)(B)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F44
.anchor}[\[FN44\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B44). See id. [[§
1855(b)(1)(C)-(D)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F45
.anchor}[\[FN45\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B45). See id. [[§
1855(b)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F46
.anchor}[\[FN46\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B46). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1855(b)(2)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber46 .anchor}

[[\[FN47\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B47). See id. [[§
1855(b)(4)(A)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).
For example, a federal land management agency like the Forest Service or
the Bureau of Land Management would have to consult with NMFS on any
upstream or upland actions that may adversely affect EFH.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F48
.anchor}[\[FN48\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B48). See 16 U.S.C.
S1855(b)(3)(A).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F49
.anchor}[\[FN49\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B49). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1855(b)(3)(B)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F50
.anchor}[\[FN50\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B50). See id. [[§
1855(b)(4)(A)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F51
.anchor}[\[FN51\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B51). See id. [[§
1855(b)(4)(B)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F52
.anchor}[\[FN52\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B52). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F53
.anchor}[\[FN53\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B53). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1855(b)(4)(B)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F54
.anchor}[\[FN54\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B54). For example,
permits are required for activities affecting wetlands under the Clean
Water Act. See [[33 U.S.C. § 1344(a)
(1994)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=33USCAS1344&FindType=L).
Permits are also required for, among other things, the incidental taking
of species under the Endangered Species Act. See [[16 U.S.C. § §
1531]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1531&FindType=L)-[[1544
(1973)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1544&FindType=L).
In addition, permits are required for the filling of navigable waters
under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. See [[33 U.S.C. § 403
(1994)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=33USCAS403&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F55
.anchor}[\[FN55\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B55). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1855(b)(4)(A)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F56
.anchor}[\[FN56\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B56). See [[33 U.S.C. § §
1344(e)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=33USCAS1344&FindType=L)-[[1344(f)
(1972)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=33USCAS1344&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F57
.anchor}[\[FN57\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B57). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1855(b)(2)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F58
.anchor}[\[FN58\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B58). See [[Magnuson Act
Provisions, 62 Fed. Reg. 19,723 (Apr. 23,
1997)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=0107606828&ReferencePosition=19723)
(to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 600) (hereinafter Magnuson Act
Provisions).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F59
.anchor}[\[FN59\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B59). See id. at 66,531.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F60
.anchor}[\[FN60\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B60). See Office Of
Habitat Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service, Technical
Guidance To NMFS For Implementing The Essential Fish Habitat
Requirements For The Magnuson-Stevens Act (Draft 1998) (hereinafter NMFS
Technical Guidance).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F61
.anchor}[\[FN61\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B61). The National Marine
Fisheries Service as of this writing has yet to issue any final rules to
supersede the interim final rule (IFR) published in December 1997. The
Councils used the IFR and NMFS technical guidance in amending their
fishery management plans. An IFR can legally be viewed as a final rule
up to the point that a final rule is issued. The NMFS will publish a
final rule on EFH by the end of 2000. Telephone interview with Jon
Kurland, Office of Habitat Conservation, NMFS (Apr. 18, 2000).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F62
.anchor}[\[FN62\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B62). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,551.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F63
.anchor}[\[FN63\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B63). See National Safety
Council, Environmental Health Center, Coastal Challenges: A Guide To
Coastal And Marine Issues 88 (1998). See also [[United States v.
Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121
(1985)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985158798).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F64
.anchor}[\[FN64\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B64). See NMFS Technical
Guidance supra note 59, at 2.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F65
.anchor}[\[FN65\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B65). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,551.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F66
.anchor}[\[FN66\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B66). See NMFS Technical
Guidance supra note 59, at 2.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F67
.anchor}[\[FN67\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B67). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 63.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F68
.anchor}[\[FN68\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B68). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F69
.anchor}[\[FN69\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B69). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F70
.anchor}[\[FN70\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B70). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,554.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F71
.anchor}[\[FN71\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B71). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F72
.anchor}[\[FN72\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B72). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,552.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F73
.anchor}[\[FN73\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B73). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F74
.anchor}[\[FN74\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B74). See Kenneth W.
Able, Measures of Juvenile Fish Habitat Quality: Examples from a
National Estuarine Research Reserve, in Benaka, Fish Habitat supra note
9, 134 at 137-143.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F75
.anchor}[\[FN75\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B75). See Greenberg,
Essential Fish Habitat supra note 10, at 10465.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F76
.anchor}[\[FN76\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B76). See Richard E.
Gutting, Jr., Conserving Fish Habitat from the Seafood Perspective, in
Benaka, Fish Habitat supra note 9, 23 at 26-28.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F77
.anchor}[\[FN77\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B77). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,552.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F78
.anchor}[\[FN78\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B78). See id. at 66,553.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F79
.anchor}[\[FN79\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B79). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F80
.anchor}[\[FN80\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B80). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F81
.anchor}[\[FN81\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B81). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F82
.anchor}[\[FN82\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B82). See NMFS Technical
Guidance supra note 57, at 40.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F83
.anchor}[\[FN83\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B83). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F84
.anchor}[\[FN84\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B84). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F85
.anchor}[\[FN85\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B85). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,554.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F86
.anchor}[\[FN86\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B86). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F87
.anchor}[\[FN87\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B87). See id.

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber51 .anchor}

[[\[FN88\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B88). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F89
.anchor}[\[FN89\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B89). See NMFS Technical
Guidance supra note 57, at 48-51.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F90
.anchor}[\[FN90\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B90). Turbidity occurs
when underwater bottom sediments (i.e., sand, mud, silt) are disturbed
by dredges, drills, shovels, or other mechanical devices. The disturbed
sediments float in the water column (a phenomena sometimes called
re-suspension) and can decrease the amount of light reaching bottom
organisms and also can release buried contaminants into the aquatic
environment.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F91
.anchor}[\[FN91\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B91). See id. at 48.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F92
.anchor}[\[FN92\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B92). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F93
.anchor}[\[FN93\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B93). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F94
.anchor}[\[FN94\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B94). See id. at 49.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F95
.anchor}[\[FN95\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B95). See id. at 49-51.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F96
.anchor}[\[FN96\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B96). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,556.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F97
.anchor}[\[FN97\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B97). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F98
.anchor}[\[FN98\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B98). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F99
.anchor}[\[FN99\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B99). See NMFS Technical
Guidance supra note 59, at 80.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F100
.anchor}[\[FN100\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B100). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F101
.anchor}[\[FN101\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B101). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F102
.anchor}[\[FN102\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B102). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F103
.anchor}[\[FN103\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B103). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,556.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F104
.anchor}[\[FN104\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B104). See id. at
66,556-66,557.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F105
.anchor}[\[FN105\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B105). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F106
.anchor}[\[FN106\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B106). See NMFS
Technical Guidance supra note 57, at 86.

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber53 .anchor}

[[\[FN107\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B107). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,557. These requirements include a
description of the proposed action; an analysis of the individual and
cumulative effects of the proposed action on EFH, managed species, and
associated species, including prey species, including affected life
history stages, the federal agency\'s views regarding the effects of the
action on EFH, and proposed mitigation activities, if applicable.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F108
.anchor}[\[FN108\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B108). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F109
.anchor}[\[FN109\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B109). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,558.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F110
.anchor}[\[FN110\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B110). See NMFS
Technical Guidance supra note 57, at 99-104. See also [[16 U.S.C. § §
1801]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1801&FindType=L)-[[1882
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1882&FindType=L)
(the MFCMA) and [[16 U.S.C. § §
1531]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1531&FindType=L)-
[[1544
(1973)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1544&FindType=L)
(the ESA).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F111
.anchor}[\[FN111\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B111). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F112
.anchor}[\[FN112\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B112). See id. at 99.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F113
.anchor}[\[FN113\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B113). See e.g., [[16
U.S.C. § §
1531]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1531&FindType=L)-[[1544]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1544&FindType=L).

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber54 .anchor}

[[\[FN114\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B114). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,556.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F115
.anchor}[\[FN115\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B115). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F116
.anchor}[\[FN116\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B116). See Magnuson Act
Provisions supra note 58, at 66,558.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F117
.anchor}[\[FN117\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B117). See id. at
66,557.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F118
.anchor}[\[FN118\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B118). See NMFS
Technical Guidance supra note 57, at 102. See also [[16 U.S.C. § §
1531]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1531&FindType=L)-[[1544
(1973)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1544&FindType=L).
Under ESA, consultations are required by either NMFS or U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service depending on the species in question. The following
discussion deals only with fish species subject to NMFS jurisdiction
under ESA.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F119
.anchor}[\[FN119\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B119). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F120
.anchor}[\[FN120\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B120). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F121
.anchor}[\[FN121\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B121). See [[16 U.S.C. §
1855(b)(4)
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1855&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F122
.anchor}[\[FN122\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B122). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F123
.anchor}[\[FN123\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B123). See, e.g., [[16
U.S.C. § §
1531]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1531&FindType=L)-[[1544
(2000)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=16USCAS1544&FindType=L).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F124
.anchor}[\[FN124\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B124). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F125
.anchor}[\[FN125\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B125). See generally
Magnuson Act Provisions supra note 58.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F126
.anchor}[\[FN126\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B126). See Gulf Of
Mexico Fishery Management Council, Generic Amendment For Addressing
Essential Fish Habitat Requirements In The Following Fishery Management
Plans Of The Gulf Of Mexico (1998) (hereinafter GM Generic Amendment).
The plan covers 26 representative managed species and the coral complex
in the Gulf of Mexico.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F127
.anchor}[\[FN127\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B127). See id. at 22.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F128
.anchor}[\[FN128\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B128). See id. at 25.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F129
.anchor}[\[FN129\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B129). See generally GM
Generic Amendment supra note 126.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F130
.anchor}[\[FN130\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B130). See Marine Fish
Conservation Network & Center For Marine Conservation, Missing The Boat:
An Evaluation Of Fishery Management Council Response To The Sustainable
Fisheries Act 11-12 (1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F131
.anchor}[\[FN131\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B131). Email to Lee
Benaka from Jon Kurland, Office of Habitat Conservation, NMFS (Nov. 2,
1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F132
.anchor}[\[FN132\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B132). See GM Generic
Amendment supra note 126, at 29. Estuarine systems include their mud,
sand, shell, rock, and associated biological communities, sea grasses
and algae, and marshes and mangroves.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F133
.anchor}[\[FN133\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B133). See id. at 37-43.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F134
.anchor}[\[FN134\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B134). See id. at
115-160. Non-fishing related categories include physical alteration,
water quality issues and biological alterations that may adversely
affect EFH. See id. at 123-160.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F135
.anchor}[\[FN135\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B135). See id. at
174-198.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F136
.anchor}[\[FN136\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B136). See id. at
174-175. These factors include the extent to which the activity would
directly and indirectly affect the occurrence, abundance, health, and
continued existence of fishery resources, the extent to which adverse
impacts can be avoided through project modification or other safeguards,
the availability of alternative sites and actions that would reduce
project impacts, and the extent to which mitigation may be used to
offset unavoidable loss of wetland habitat functions and values.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F137
.anchor}[\[FN137\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B137). See id. at
199-201.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F138
.anchor}[\[FN138\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B138). See id. at 162.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F139
.anchor}[\[FN139\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B139). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F140
.anchor}[\[FN140\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B140). See U.S. Army
Corps Of Engineers, Galveston District, Draft Environmental Assessment
For Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Widening And Restoration Of Bay Depth At
Two Placement Areas, Matagorda Bay, Texas 29-52 (1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F141
.anchor}[\[FN141\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B141). See id. at 1-2.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F142
.anchor}[\[FN142\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B142). See id. at 3-4.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F143
.anchor}[\[FN143\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B143). See id.

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber58 .anchor}

[[\[FN144\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B144). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F145
.anchor}[\[FN145\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B145). Telephone
Interview with Ric Ruebsamen, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS (Dec. 15,
1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F146
.anchor}[\[FN146\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B146). Letter from
Assistant Regional Administrator, Habitat Conservation Division, NMFS,
Andreas Mager, Jr. to Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch, New Orleans
District, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Ronald J. Ventola
(May 25, 1999) (letter on file with authors).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F147
.anchor}[\[FN147\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B147). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F148
.anchor}[\[FN148\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B148). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F149
.anchor}[\[FN149\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B149). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F150
.anchor}[\[FN150\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B150). See id. The
recommendations were that a GRM be convened, a soil placement plan
should be developed in conjunction with NMFS and other interested
agencies to minimize impacts to area wetlands and maximize marsh
creation opportunities, and that the applicant should be the required to
develop a \"compensatory mitigation plan that fully offsets the
remaining, unavoidable wetland impacts associated with this well\"
within ninety days of initiating dredging activities.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F151
.anchor}[\[FN151\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B151). Letter from
Chief, Regulatory Branch, New Orleans District, Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers, Ronald J. Ventola, to the Habitat Conservation
Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, c/o Louisiana State
University (received by NMFS June 21, 1999) (letter on file with
authors).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F152
.anchor}[\[FN152\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B152). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F153
.anchor}[\[FN153\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B153). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F154
.anchor}[\[FN154\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B154). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F155
.anchor}[\[FN155\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B155). Telephone
Interview with Ric Ruebsamen, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS (Dec. 14,
1999).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F156
.anchor}[\[FN156\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B156). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F157
.anchor}[\[FN157\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B157). See generally
Magunson-Stevens Act Provisions supra note 58.

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber60 .anchor}

[[\[FN158\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B158). Letter from Andreas
Mager, Jr., Assistant Regional Administrator, Habitat Conservation
Division, NMFS, to Chris C. Oynes, Regional Director, Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (July 1, 1999) (on file
with authors) (hereinafter Mager Letter).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F159
.anchor}[\[FN159\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B159). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F160
.anchor}[\[FN160\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B160). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F161
.anchor}[\[FN161\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B161). See id. Four
recommendations in the letter were proposed, including deleting the
Flower Garden Banks from area-wide lease sales, requiring all owners and
operators of oil facilities located seaward of the coastline to develop
oil spill response plans, and holding lessees responsible for the
control and removal of pollution to avoid risks to EFH and associated
fisheries). The Flower Garden Banks are a pair of underwater features
that rise from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, 100 miles off the coasts
of Texas and Louisiana. These features are created by salt domes beneath
the sea floor and are popular diving destinations due to Caribbean reef
fishes and invertebrates that congregate there. See GM Generic Amendment
supra note 126, at 69-70. See also National Safety Council,
Environmental Health Center, Coastal Challenges: A Guide To Coastal And
Marine Issues 91 (1998) (stating that the Flower Garden Banks National
Marine Sanctuary was designated by the Secretary of Commerce in January
1992).

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F162
.anchor}[\[FN162\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B162). See Mager Letter,
supra note 158, at 2-3. The NMFS recommended that the MMS be required to
provide NMFS with yearly summaries describing the number and types of
permits issued in certain areas, along with mitigation actions taken by
MMS for that year in response to damage to EFH.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F163
.anchor}[\[FN163\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B163). See id. at 4.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F164
.anchor}[\[FN164\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B164). See id. at 1-2.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F165
.anchor}[\[FN165\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B165). See id.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F166
.anchor}[\[FN166\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B166). See supra note
131. See also NMFS Technical Guidance supra note 57, at 44.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F167
.anchor}[\[FN167\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B167). See GM Generic
Amendment supra note 126, at App. D.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F168
.anchor}[\[FN168\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B168). See 16 U.S.C.
S1855(f) (Supp. II 1994).

[]{#Document4zzSDUNumber62 .anchor}

[[\[FN169\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B169). See Daley Motion supra
note 37, at 1.

[[]{#Document4zzFN_F170
.anchor}[\[FN170\]]{.underline}](#Document4zzFN_B170). See National
Environmental Procedures Act, 42 U.S.C. § 321 (1988). See also
Administrative Procedures Act, [[5 U.S.C. § 551
(1988)]{.underline}](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS551&FindType=L).

END OF DOCUMENT