Assess potential threats and impacts to managed species EFH and EFH-HAPCs and the South Atlantic ecosystem associated with changes in food webs and connectivity and processes that could improve those resources or place them at risk.
– Incorporate into management strategies the potential indirect effects of fisheries on food web linkages and identify unintended consequences;
– Use food web models to simulate the ecosystem, understand food web linkages, inform single species assessment and management, generate reference points and ecosystem-level indicators to enhance ecosystem stability and resilience.

Assess potential threats and impacts to managed species EFH and EFH-HAPCs and the South Atlantic ecosystem associated with climate variability or change and processes that could improve those resources or place them at risk.
– Develop indicators to track ecological, social, and changing fisheries trends that appear to be due to changing ocean environmental conditions;
– Consider tradeoffs and necessary responses to account for predicted and realized increases or decreases in productivity;
– Apply the precautionary approach and careful scientific and management evaluation as new fisheries develop.

Provide guidance for marine aquaculture development in offshore and coastal waters, riverine systems, and adjacent wetland habitats to protect EFH. 
– Require effective regulation under MSA and other applicable federal statutes;
– Require at least a 10-year permit with annual reporting, operational and option for revocation;
– Require only drugs, biologics, and other chemicals approved for aquaculture by the FDA, EPA, or USDA be used;
– Allow only native species for aquaculture in federal waters of the South Atlantic and prohibit use of genetically modified organisms unless approved by FDA;
– Require applicant to provide all information necessary to thoroughly evaluate the suitability of potential aquaculture sites;
– Require applicant/permit holder to develop environmental monitoring plans for projects authorized under MSA and have adequate funds committed to ensure removal of organisms and decommissioning of facilities;
– NOAA Fisheries specify conditions of use and outline process to repeal, modify or revoke permits.

Protect remaining habitat and support actions to restore SAV in locations where they have occurred in the past. 
– Develop a comprehensive adaptive management strategy to address SAV decline;
Adopt a reliable status and trend survey methodology (mapping and monitoring) to verify the location, health, and coverage of SAV at sub-regional and/or local scales.

Avoid, minimize and offset damage to EFH from large-scale dredging and disposal of sediments in the coastal ocean and adjacent habitats.
– Require a comprehensive environmental document be prepared for each project;
– Specify fill material match the sediment characteristics of the recipient beach as closely as possible;
– Limit dredging to bathymetric peaks and the shallowest depths possible to reduce the likelihood of infilling with fine-grained sediments.

Provide guidance for energy exploration, development and transportation in offshore and coastal waters, riverine systems and adjacent wetland habitats. Avoid and minimize impacts to EFH and EFH-HAPCs and optimize benefits from these activities.
– Use best available, least damaging technologies to avoid, minimize, and offset damage to EFH, EFH-HAPCs and avoid intersection or overlap with allowable fishing areas within the Deepwater Coral HAPCs;
– Design energy exploration activities and facilities to avoid impacts on coastal ecosystems and sand sharing systems.
– Comply with existing standards and requirements regulating domestic and international energy transportation including regulated waste disposal and emissions.
– Avoid open-loop LNG processing facilities in favor of closed-loop systems with water intake minimized and establish baseline studies and project monitoring.
Recommend that pilot scale projects not occur in areas where full-scale efforts are predicted to be environmentally unacceptable (e.g., MPAs, CHAPCs, and Spawning SMZs).

Avoid, minimize, and offset damage to EFH and EFH-HAPCs, diadromous fishes, state and federally-listed species, Federal critical habitat, and State Critical Habitat Areas (CHAs) caused by alteration of flows in southeast rivers, estuaries and nearshore ocean habitats.
– Provide detailed impact analyses, assessments of potential unavoidable damage to EFH and other marine resources;
– Avoid impacts, require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts, and account for the cumulative impacts in the same watershed;
– Recommend that projects meet state and Federal water quality standards, include baseline monitoring, and establish on-going maintenance and repair programs;
– Recommend that construction not coincide with spawning migrations or early development of sensitive species;
– Avoid impingement and entrainment of sensitive species at water intakes and provide detailed requirements for developing the intake design;
– Natural flow regime should be altered as little as possible;
– Hydropower projects implement ramping rate restrictions and a non-peaking window during the critical reproductive and rearing periods.

Prevent invasive species from impacting marine and estuarine habitats in the South Atlantic region.
– Remove species from the FMU to allow control or eradication strategy to be implemented;
– NOAA Fisheries remove invasive species as a compensatory mitigation measure and require plant materials be obtained through local nurseries;
– Grant funding to promote research and education and outreach efforts targeting invasive species;
– National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force support developing management plans for potentially invasive species in South Atlantic waters;
– Develop novel gears and invasive species harvest, eradication, and/or removal strategies/programs which do not impact South Atlantic habitats and ecosystems and encourage removal from areas of high ecological/economic importance;
– Integrate monitoring of invasive species into existing fishery-independent and dependent programs;
– Require inspection/surface cleaning prior to placement of Fish Attracting Devices;
– Discourage use of non-indigenous species in aquaculture in the SA region and ensure compliance with existing regulations;
– Energy infrastructure permits require monitoring the settlement and dispersal of non-indigenous species;
– Regional partners develop regulations controlling ballast water and research and development to advance treatment technology.

Protection and mitigation (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) of EFH and EFH-HAPCs related to artificial reef development, placement, and maintenance.
– Defines uses of ARs: recreational and commercial activities, spawning, breeding, feeding, and refuge for growth to maturity;
– Support state requests to designate specific ARs as SMZs;
– Provide a more standardized comparison for scientific investigations;
– Managers consult with stakeholders prior to siting in order to reduce user conflict and maximize the value of ARs as EFH;
– Properly site ARs to connect life stages of target species, do not impact right whales/Atlantic sturgeon or hazards to navigation;
– Require the use of environmentally safe, long-lasting materials for reef construction;
– Consider impacts of decommissioning structures on a case-by-case basis;
– Mitigation measures be specified if the function of an AR is lost.