In § 600.920, paragraph (g)(6) omits “findings of” to avoid confusion between establishing a finding pursuant to § 600.920(f)(3) of the final rule and issuing a General Concurrence under § 600.920(g). In § 600.920, paragraph (g)(5) is newly titled as “Notification” rather than “Public review.” The rule no longer requires an opportunity for public or Council review before NMFS provides a Federal agency with a written statement of General Concurrence. The Public Inspection page Restoration or similar projects for beneficial purposes may still result in habitat disruption or alteration, both short- and long-term, and are subject to consultation if they may adversely affect EFH. In § 600.925, paragraph (d) is a new paragraph, titled “Coordination with Councils,” that describes how NMFS will coordinate with each Council to identify actions on which the Councils intend to comment pursuant to section 305(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Other commenters urged NMFS to require Councils to designate HAPCs for all species and to hold HAPCs to a higher standard of protection. Comment C: Four non-fishing industry organizations recommended that the final rule make clear that EFH consultations are an information exchange process, not a separate regulatory review, and may be documented in an informal manner. The comments and responses discussed below are arranged by topic to parallel the organizational structure of the interim final rule. (ii) Habitat information by life stage. Nevertheless, Council recommendations should be reasonable. These clarifications do not constitute substantial changes to the rule. However, Councils may promote the protection of managed species' habitats outside the EEZ, and NMFS will use that information as appropriate in discussions regarding international actions. Nevertheless, national standard 2 Start Printed Page 2359requires fishery management measures to be based upon the best scientific information available. There is a diversity of opinions on the best way to integrate habitat and ecosystem considerations into fishery management. Response A: The final rule maintains the requirement to prepare an EFH Assessment for any Federal action that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of whether the action is land-based or directly within waters designated as EFH. The commenters wanted NMFS to define the “substantial adverse effects” standard for actions requiring expanded consultation, and wanted examples of federal actions that would result in expanded consultation. If appropriate, habitat creation may be a means of compensating for lost or degraded habitat. Comment A: Three commenters recommended that NMFS delete the provision requiring that Federal agency responses that are inconsistent with EFH Conservation Recommendations must include the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects. NMFS also restructured the section addressing fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH by separating into distinct sections the guidelines for evaluation of fishing activities and minimization of adverse effects. Response H: Tracking actions covered by a General Concurrence is necessary to ensure that the cumulative effects of the actions are no more than minimal. Comment A: A number of commenters representing non-fishing interests stated that the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not authorize a risk-averse or ecosystem approach to EFH. Response F: As explained in the preamble to the interim final rule at 62 FR 66540, non-fishing and fishing impacts are held to different standards in the EFH regulations because of differences in the applicable provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Response B: NMFS agrees that it might not always be appropriate to identify as EFH all current habitats as well as certain historic habitats. NMFS may develop written procedures to further define such review processes. In cases where the recommendations constitute a review of a draft Council document, it may not be necessary for the recommendations to describe the available science if that information is summarized adequately in the Council's document. However, Councils have independent authority under section 305(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to comment on Federal and state actions. Requests for copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) or related documents should be sent to EFH Coordinator, Office of Habitat Conservation, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282. Comment A: Several commenters requested that the public comment period be extended and development of the final rule be delayed to allow the public to better assess EFH implementation. One commenter wanted to see EFH designations based on the biological needs of each species, not geographic or political boundaries. Maßgeblich ist dabei die maximale Interagency consultations by nature involve an exchange of information between agencies, and the process for further review provides a mechanism for resolving disagreements. This cooperative exchange of information and recommendations between NMFS and Federal agencies is vital for effective consultation regarding actions that may adversely affect EFH, and is inherent in the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with NMFS. Procedures for Council involvement in higher level review are already discussed in the regulations, and may be elaborated upon if appropriate in any written procedures NMFS might develop to refine the process in the future. The phrase “actions of concern that would adversely affect EFH” replaces “actions that may adversely impact EFH” to convey more clearly that the Regional Administrator would screen the actions. Comment A: One commenter requested that NMFS delete reference to the word “state” in the sentence in § 600.905(a) of the EFH regulations that reads, “The purpose of these procedures is to promote the protection of EFH in the review of Federal and state actions that may adversely affect EFH.” The commenter said that use of the word “state” is inappropriate since the Magnuson-Stevens Act only applies to the review of Federal actions. Comment D: One organization commented that the regulations should consider recreationally important species, including the economic value of recreational fisheries, in any actions taken pursuant to the rule. (4) Non-fishing related activities that may adversely affect EFH. Another commenter asked Start Printed Page 2348for an explanation of the terms “species richness” and “resilience” within the definition of “healthy ecosystem.”. Zur Orientierung ist die Höhenlage der Straßenachse Bahnhofstraße in … In § 600.920, paragraph (e)(4)(iv) omits “particularly when an action is non-water dependent.”, In § 600.920, former paragraph (e) is now paragraph (f) and the heading as been changed from “Use of existing consultation/environmental review procedures” to “Use of existing environmental review procedures.”. § 22 BauNVO) (ii) The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation. Comment J: One commenter recommended that NMFS require Councils to coordinate with states and other authorities to provide conservation recommendations when Council-managed fisheries adversely affect EFH outside Federal jurisdiction. By using the words “prevent” and “mitigate” in this provision of the EFH regulations, NMFS' intent is to give Councils the flexibility to adopt the approach that is most suitable to meet the statutory obligation to minimize adverse fishing effects on EFH. In § 600.920, paragraph (j) is a new section on programmatic consultation. Such an ecosystem should be similar to comparable, undisturbed ecosystems with regard to standing crop, productivity, nutrient dynamics, trophic structure, species richness, stability, resilience, contamination levels, and the frequency of diseased organisms. In this Issue, Documents (ii) Actions qualifying for General Concurrence must be tracked to ensure that their cumulative effects are no more than minimal. All Council deliberations on fishery management measures are open to the public, and all Council meeting agendas are published in the Federal Register. If a Federal agency attempts to use a method of consultation that NMFS determines is inappropriate for a given action or actions, NMFS will advise the agency as to which approach is best suited to handle the action(s). (D) Areas described as EFH will normally be greater than or equal to aquatic areas that have been identified as “critical habitat” for any managed species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The commenter also said that Councils have no authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to protect the habitat of any fish. These documents must be provided to NMFS with the EFH Assessment. Councils must describe EFH in text and must provide maps of the geographic locations of EFH or the geographic boundaries within which EFH for each species and life stage is found. Comment F: A few commenters addressed the standards for determining whether a General Concurrence is appropriate for a given suite of actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. dem höchsten Punkt des Gebäudes gemessen. Comment B: One commenter expressed concern that the EFH provisions are being used arbitrarily to prevent the use of certain fishing gears, rather than to protect EFH based on scientific information. Comment B: Several commenters said that NMFS does not have the authority to request further review of Federal agency decisions that are inconsistent with EFH Conservation Recommendations. The interim final rule took effect on January 20, 1998. (c) Designation of non-Federal representative. (2) Notification by agency and submittal of EFH Assessment. Comment D: Several commenters wanted the final rule to restrict EFH designation to the habitat required to maintain commercial fisheries at optimal yield or another quantitative measure of the status of a stock. Several other commenters thought it was inappropriate for the interim final rule to state a relationship between EFH and “critical habitat” that will always apply for ESA listed species. Such a response must be provided at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations, unless NMFS and the Federal agency have agreed to use alternative time frames for the Federal agency response. For programs that were delegated prior to the approval of EFH designations by the Secretary, EFH consultation is required when the delegation is reviewed, renewed, or revised. Some commenters also wanted this standard of information to extend to NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations. Comment B: One commenter suggested that NMFS defer to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on matters related to dredging and contaminated dredged material. documents in the last year, 760 Oberkante Attika. Comment C: A commenter representing non-fishing industry interests wanted the final rule to require the Councils to record, and make available for public review and comment, the scientific basis for all Council decisions. Comment E: A few commenters urged regional flexibility in the regulations so Councils can develop their own EFH designations and procedures for tracking actions that may adversely affect EFH. For actions addressed by a programmatic consultation under paragraph (j) of this section, an EFH Assessment should be completed during the programmatic consultation and is not required for individual actions implemented under the program, except in those instances identified by NMFS in the programmatic consultation as requiring separate EFH consultation. Die Abweichungen der EFH A von der Bezugshöhe werden von den verschiedenen Baurechtsämtern unterschiedlich gehandhabt, so dass es schwierig ist die Frage pauschal zu beantworten. The Councils and NMFS should cooperate closely to identify actions that may adversely affect EFH, to develop comments and EFH Conservation Recommendations to Federal and state agencies, and to provide EFH information to Federal and state agencies. Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act confers upon the Secretary the authority to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out any provision of the Act. (i) Expanded consultation procedures—(1) Purpose and criteria. The paragraph also omits the general recommendations and options for conservation and enhancement that appeared in the interim final rule. NMFS works closely with other agencies and the private sector to ensure that restoration projects proceed expeditiously while considering and minimizing any temporary or permanent adverse effects to EFH. The information requested by the commenters under FOIA was not necessary to enable the commenters to provide answers to NMFS' questions regarding their experience under the interim final rule, and analysis of that information was not a prerequisite to providing informed comments. (5) Cumulative impacts analysis. Response A: The final rule retains the four-level approach for organizing information used to designate EFH. (ii) The views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected. Die Traufhöhe an der Comment C: One commenter said that the process for further review must preserve the autonomy of the action agency to decide whether to implement NMFS' recommendations. Der Pfeil saß wohl falsch bzw wurde falsch beschriftet. EFH consultation is not required for actions that were completed prior to the approval of EFH designations by the Secretary, e.g., issued permits. Such request will explain why NMFS believes expanded consultation is needed and will specify any new information needed. Supplemental consultation is not necessary unless a Federal agency substantially revises its plans for an action in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH Conservation Recommendations. Response B: NMFS agrees that the EFH mandate will impose additional work on NMFS staff and has taken this into consideration in crafting the final rule to minimize duplication and maximize efficiency. In § 600.920, paragraph (e) discusses EFH Assessments. Section 305(b)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Secretary regarding any action or proposed action that may adversely affect EFH. These requirements stemmed from comments NMFS received on the Framework and proposed rule expressing concern that General Concurrences might allow more than minimal adverse effects to EFH without some degree of oversight. If more than one Federal agency is responsible for a Federal action, the consultation requirements of sections 305(b)(2) through (4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act may be fulfilled through a lead agency. FMPs must include maps of the geographic locations of EFH or the geographic boundaries within which EFH for each species and life stage is found. If NMFS does not make such a finding, or if there are no existing consultation processes relevant to the Federal agency's actions, the agency and NMFS should follow one of the approaches for consultation discussed in the following sections. FMPs must identify the specific geographic location or extent of habitats described as EFH. Comment I: One commenter recommended that the rule be strengthened to prevent the segmentation of approvals for a single overall project in a specific geographic area that includes EFH. (2) Notification by agency and submittal of EFH Assessment. In § 600.915 the final rule adds the phrase “and the general public” and “EFH” replaces “such habitat.”. In the course of working with Federal agencies to identify opportunities for developing General Concurrences and programmatic consultations, it became apparent to NMFS that some parties were confused about the distinction between these two approaches to EFH consultation. Response D: NMFS decided not to add a definition of “best professional judgment.” The regulations do not specifically call for using such judgments, so a definition is unnecessary. NMFS has no authority to exempt Federal and state actions in Louisiana from the EFH consultation and recommendation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The comment period on the interim final rule closed on March 19, 1998 (63 FR 8607, February 20, 1998). If NMFS agrees that the actions fit the criteria in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, NMFS will provide the Federal agency with a written statement of General Concurrence that further consultation is not required. When an action that would adversely affect EFH is authorized, funded, or undertaken by both Federal and state agencies, NMFS will provide the appropriate state agencies with copies of EFH Conservation Recommendations developed as part of the Federal consultation procedures in § 600.920. (3) NMFS response to Federal agency. Congress declared in section 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that habitat considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the United States and noted that a purpose of the Act is to promote the protection of EFH in the review of projects conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat. We invite you to try out our new beta eCFR site at https://ecfr.federalregister.gov. The EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act require more than a simple information exchange. The final rule requires that FMPs explain the reasons for Councils' conclusions regarding the past and/or new actions that minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. In § 600.815, the former paragraph (a)(11) is now numbered (a)(10). EFH must be identified for all species in the fishery management unit of an FMP, including recreationally important species. Comment A: Some commenters requested that NMFS delete all references to Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), saying that in encouraging Councils to designate HAPCs, NMFS is going beyond the scope of the EFH provisions since the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not specifically authorize the development of a subset of habitat within EFH. Als GH ist definiert - bei Flachdächern und flach geneigten Dächern: der höchste Schnittpunkt der Gebäudeaußenwand mit der Dachhaut bzw. NMFS encourages interested parties to participate in the identification of HAPCs through the Council process. Healthy ecosystem means an ecosystem where ecological productive capacity is maintained, diversity of the flora and fauna is preserved, and the ecosystem retains the ability to regulate itself. The commenter said that such actions therefore should not be subject to EFH consultation. Die Z-Achse steht senkrecht auf dieser Ebene, die damit die Bezugsebene für die Z-Koordinaten bildet. Response B: The rule is intended to promote the conservation and enhancement of EFH for federally managed species through means other than traditional harvest management. punkt die Erdgeschossfußbodenhöhe (EFH) der Bebauung festgesetzt. Habitat areas of particular concern means those areas of EFH identified pursuant to § 600.815(a)(8). (A) Councils need basic information to understand the usage of various habitats by each managed species. NMFS may request notification for actions covered under a General Concurrence if NMFS concludes there are circumstances under which such actions could result in more than a minimal impact on EFH, or if it determines that there is no process in place to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of actions covered Start Printed Page 2382under the General Concurrence. If NMFS and the Federal agency do not agree to extend consultation, NMFS must provide EFH Conservation Recommendations to the Federal agency using the best scientific information available to NMFS.
Zeichnung Herz Anatomie, Schachenmayr Regia 6-fädig Uni, He's Got The Whole World In His Hands Deutsch, Fallout: New Vegas Abscheulichkeiten, Bootstour Diano Marina,