Federal Fishery Law amendments to increase protection of Marine fish habitat.

The EFH Final Rule (50 CFR 600.815(8)) states that “FMPs should identify specific habitat types or areas within EFH as habitat areas of particular concern based on one or more of the following considerations… (underlined text)”.

The corresponding text is a Council interpretation of the EFH Final Rule criteria.

CRITERION 1A: Importance of Historic Ecological Function The area or habitat feature proposed for HAPC designation at one time provided an important ecological function to a currently managed species, but no longer provides that function due to some form of degradation. An important ecological function could include, but is not limited to, protection from predation, increased food supply, appropriate spawning sites, egg beds, etc. The importance of the ecological function should be documented in scientific literature and based on either field studies, laboratory experiments, or a combination of the two.

CRITERION 1B: Importance of Current Ecological Function The area or habitat feature proposed for HAPC designation currently provides an important ecological function to a managed species. An important ecological function could include, but is not limited to, protection from predation, increased food supply, appropriate spawning sites, egg beds, etc. The importance of the ecological function should be documented in scientific literature and based on either field studies, laboratory experiments, or a combination of the two.

CRITERION 2: Sensitivity to Anthropogenic Stresses The area or habitat feature proposed for HAPC designation is particularly sensitive (either in absolute terms or relative to other areas and/or habitat features used by the target species) to the adverse effects associated with anthropogenic activities. These activities may be fishing or nonfishing related. The stress or activity must be a recognizable or perceived threat to the area of the proposed HAPC.

CRITERION 3: Extent of Current or Future Development Stresses The area or habitat feature proposed for HAPC designation faces either an existing and on-going development-related threat or a planned or foreseeable development-related threat. Development-related threats may result from, but are not limited to, activities such as sand mining for beach nourishment, gravel mining for construction or other purposes, the filling of wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal pools, shoreline alteration, channel dredging (but not including routine maintenance dredging), dock construction, marina construction, etc.

CRITERION 4: Rarity of the Habitat Type The habitat feature proposed for HAPC designation is considered “rare” either at the scale of the New England region or at the scale of the range of at least one life history stage of one or more Council-managed species. A “rare” habitat feature is that which is considered to occur infrequently, is uncommon, unusual, or highly valued owing to its uniqueness. Keep in mind that the term “rare” usually implies unusual quality and value enhanced by permanent infrequency. We may usually think of rare habitats or features as those that are spatially or temporally very limited in extent, but it could also be applied to a unique combination of common features that occur only in a very few places.

The Council encouraged the development of HAPC proposals that (in no particular order):

• Will improve the fisheries management in the EEZ.
• Include EFH designations for more than one Council-managed species in order to maximize the benefit of the designations.
• Include juvenile cod EFH.
• Meet more than one of the EFH Final Rule HAPC criteria.