[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62230-62233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25328]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 061202A]


Endangered and Threatened Species; Notice of Availability for the 
Final Recovery Plan for Johnson's Seagrass

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the final recovery plan for 
Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii Eiseman) as required by the 
Endangered Species Act.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the final recovery plan should be 
addressed to: David Bernhart, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 
Protected Resources Division, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. 
Petersburg, FL 33702. A copy of the Final Recovery Plan can also be 
downloaded from the following web address: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR3/recovery.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Bernhart, (727) 570-5312 or 
David O'Brien, (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Johnson's seagrass, Halophila johnsonii, is a marine plant species 
found growing in lagoonal waters along approximately 200 km of 
coastline in southeastern Florida between Sebastian Inlet and north 
Biscayne Bay. The species often grows in a patchy, non-contiguous 
distribution at water depths extending from the intertidal down to 3 
meters. Halophila johnsonii is rare, has a limited reproductive 
capacity, and is vulnerable to a number of anthropogenic and natural 
disturbances. Johnson's seagrass is listed as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as ammended, 16 USC 1531 et seq.(ESA) 
and is the first marine plant to be listed under the ESA. Principal 
threats to the species' survival include: (1) habitat degradation and 
destruction from dredging and filling, construction and shading from 
in- and overwater structures, prop scarring, altered water quality, and 
siltation; (2) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect 
seagrasses; and (3) stochastic storm events.
    The recovery plan contains a synopsis of the biology and 
distribution of Johnson's seagrass, a description of factors affecting 
species recovery, an outline of actions needed to recover the species, 
and an implementation schedule for completing the recovery tasks. The 
recovery plan for Johnson's seagrass, prepared for NMFS by an eight-
member recovery team, provides a framework for addressing a multitude 
of biological concerns and outlines Federal agency responsibilities 
under the ESA with the sole purpose of insuring long-term survival of 
the species. NMFS published a notice of availability of the draft 
recovery plan for Johnson's seagrass in the Federal Register on June 
26, 2000 (65 FR 39369). Comments were received from nine parties during 
the 60-day comment period. The majority of the comments were editorial 
and were incorporated as received. More substantive comments from the 
reviewers and NMFS' responses to these comments are summarized here.

Comments and Responses

    Comment 1: One commenter suggested the use of historic ecological 
parameters to compare with existing ecological conditions in order to 
evaluate the extent of perturbations on Johnson's seagrass and its 
habitat within the current ecosystem.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this commenter and the value of 
comparing historical and existing ecological conditions; however, only 
limited historical data of this type exists for Johnson's seagrass. 
With the implementation of the plan's recovery tasks, including the 
establishment of long-term monitoring sites and the evaluation of 
ecological parameters, a historical database for Johnson's seagrass 
will be developed and available for comparative use.
    Comment 2: A few reviewers questioned the accuracy of previous 
research results that were discussed and referenced in the recovery 
plan.
    Response: The recovery plan cites previous research considered 
relevant to the understanding and recovery of Johnson's seagrass. The 
information and research results used in the development of the plan 
represent the best scientific and commercial data available at the time 
the plan was written. The recovery plan's research review describes 
what is currently known about Johnson's seagrass and helps identify 
research needs for the species. NMFS refers any reviewers with 
questions or comments concerning results or conclusions expressed in a 
specific reference directly to the author of that citation.
    Comment 3: One commenter stated that H. johnsonii is regularly 
found in areas that would not appear to be conducive to seagrasses, 
such as in finger canals and portions of the Lake Worth Lagoon near the 
C-51 canal. Based on these observations, H. johnsonii is considered by 
the commenter to be much more widespread than indicated in the recovery 
plan.
    Response: Johnson's seagrass is known to be patchily distributed in 
lagoons along approximately 200 km of coastline in southeastern 
Florida. As stated in the final critical habitat designation (65 FR 
17786; April 5, 2000), an abundant core of Halophila species, including 
Johnson's seagrass, has been documented in the middle of its range 
(Lake Worth Lagoon, Palm Beach County). The species is known to occur 
in euryhaline areas and has been observed growing perennially near the 
mouths of freshwater discharge canals (Gallegos and Kenworthy, 1996). 
Johnson's seagrass uses the niche available to it, often occurring in 
areas that are generally not conducive to the growth of larger 
seagrasses. The recovery team is aware of documented observations of H. 
johnsonii in finger canals within the species' range. NMFS is 
interested in all reports or sightings of Johnson's seagrass. All 
verified sightings or surveys of Johnson's seagrass are added to a 
database documenting the species' abundance, distribution, and 
ecological parameters.
    Comment 4: One reviewer commented on the need to identify the 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Division of 
Marine Resources (DMR), as an active agency in the Conservation 
Measures of the plan and to address the critical role that this state 
agency plays in the management, enforcement, and conservation of 
seagrass and marine habitat.

[[Page 62231]]

    Response: A descriptive paragraph about the FWC, DMR, has been 
added to the recovery plan's ``State Conservation Measures'' section. 
The FWC was created in 1998 with the merger of the Florida Game and 
Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Marine Fisheries Commission. This 
new state agency has full constitutional rulemaking authority, under 
the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, Chapter 372.072 of 
the Florida Statutes (F.S.), to protect and manage threatened and 
endangered marine species. However, the Florida Endangered and 
Threatened Species Act (F.S. 372.072) limits the definitions of 
endangered and threatened species to only include members of the animal 
kingdom (any species of fish and wildlife).
    Although federally listed, Johnson's seagrass is not managed as a 
threatened marine species by the FWC. The FWC, Bureau of Protected 
Species Management, provides comments and recommendations to state 
permitting agencies on actions that may impact seagrass, including 
Johnson's seagrass, based on the protection of essential habitat for 
the listed manatees and marine turtles. Projects are not reviewed by 
the state solely for impacts to Johnson's seagrass or its designated 
critical habitat. The plan describes FWC's role in protecting Florida's 
seagrass habitat, including Johnson's seagrass throughout its range, 
through its (a) permitting program for the harvest of seagrass (for 
educational or research purposes), (b) regulation of fishery practices 
that may harm seagrasses, (c) enforcement efforts of state regulations 
to protect seagrass and marine habitat, (d) management-oriented 
research programs for seagrass, and (e) seagrass outreach and education 
efforts.
    Despite these valuable conservation measures, degradation or 
destruction of Johnson's seagrass habitat (including dredge and fill, 
construction and shading from overwater structures, prop scarring and 
anchor mooring, and altered water quality) continues throughout this 
species' limited range. NMFS would support efforts by the state of 
Florida to strengthen regulatory mechanisms for greater protection of 
Johnson's seagrass, including, for example, revision of the Florida 
Endangered and Threatened Species Act (F.S. 372.072) to include all 
state and/or federally listed endangered and threatened plant species 
(upland, freshwater, and marine) occurring in Florida.
    Comment 5: One reviewer requested an Environmental Impact 
Assessment to evaluate the effect of listing of this species on local 
and state economics.
    Response: The listing of a species under the ESA is based solely on 
the needs of the species. Neither an Environmental Assessment nor an 
Environmental Impact Statement is a requirement for ESA listing. 
Section 4(f) of the ESA directs the responsible Federal agency to 
develop and implement a recovery plan for listed species. A recovery 
plan is a guide for the recovery and persistence of the species and 
will not have a significant impact on the environment. Estimates of the 
time required and the cost to carry out the recovery goals have been 
incorporated into the recovery plan in the form of an implementation 
table. The goals and objectives of the plan will be attained and funds 
expended contingent upon agency appropriations and priorities. The 
actions that an agency implements according to the plan may have to be 
reviewed at that time for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
requirements.
    Comment 6: One commenter suggested refinement of the habitat 
requirements, taking into account sediment requirements for the 
species.
    Response: We refined recovery task 3.01 to discuss sediment 
characteristic and habitat requirements for the species.
    Comment 7: One reviewer stated that the plan does not address how 
permitting of work within or adjacent to designated critical habitat 
will be affected. That is, the reviewer questioned how a proposed 
project located within critical habitat will be treated compared to 
projects located outside of critical habitat.
    Response: The review of federally permitted actions is independent 
of the recovery plan and is addressed under section 7 of the ESA 
(Interagency Cooperation). Federal action agencies must review their 
proposed actions to determine whether any action may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat. Under section 7, Federal agencies must 
consult with NMFS on proposed actions to determine whether any such 
action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat.
    Comment 8: A commenter was concerned with the use of the term 
``hybridization'' in the ``Growth Form and Reproductive Biology'' 
section. The commenter stated that some could take this word to mean 
that the seagrass is not a distinct species, and accordingly, not 
entitled to protection under the ESA.
    Response: Halophila johnsonii has been identified as a distinct 
species since 1980. Halophila johnsonii was previously referred to 
either as H. decipiens or H. baillonis Ascherson, but it most closely 
resembles H. ovalis (R. Brown) Hooker f., an Indo-Pacific species, both 
morphologically and genetically (McMillan and Williams, 1980). Newly 
developing genetic evidence also suggests that H. johnsonii is more 
closely related, phylogenetically, to H. ovalis than with the other 
Halophila species, including H. decipiens, which is commonly found in 
mixed seagrass beds with Johnson's seagrass. Because of this new 
genetic data, the use of the term ``hybridization'' in the plan's 
``Growth Form and Reproductive Biology'' section was no longer needed 
and was removed.
    Comment 9: One commenter suggested the definition ``stable, self-
sustaining population,'' as used in the plan's recovery criteria, be 
revised and that objective criteria be incorporated to further define 
``self-sustaining.'' Another reviewer commented that the plan did not 
include sufficient recovery objectives and criteria.
    Response: The definition for ``stable, self-sustaining population'' 
was revised and clarified as ``a population that has been documented to 
persist for at least 10 years.'' Substantial changes were also made to 
the ``Objectives and Criteria'' section of the plan's Recovery Chapter. 
The section now reads as follows: ``The recovery objective for H. 
johnsonii is to delist the species by assuring its long-term 
persistence throughout its range. Halophila johnsonii should be 
considered for delisting when all of the following criteria are met:
    (1) The species' present geographic range remains stable for at 
least 10 years or increases, (2) self-sustaining populations are 
present throughout the range at distances less than or equal to the 
maximum dispersal distance to allow for stable vegetative recruitment 
and genetic diversity, and (3) populations and supporting habitat in 
its geographic range have long-term protection (through regulatory 
action or purchase acquisition).
    Quantitative information, including the number of self-sustaining 
populations necessary and the quality and quantity of habitat required 
to further define and meet these criteria, are included as recovery 
plan tasks in the Final Recovery Plan.
    Comment 10: One commenter felt that the range-wide monitoring tasks 
for Johnson's seagrass would not include information or data on adverse 
impacts (such as dredging or recreational boating prop scarring) 
occurring to the species and its habitat throughout its range.

[[Page 62232]]

    Response: Adverse impacts to Johnson's seagrass could be detected 
during detailed mapping, which is specified as a recovery task in the 
plan. Johnson's seagrass distribution, abundance, shoot density and 
cover, and a suite of environmental parameters (such as optical water 
quality, water depth, and salinity) would be determined at monitoring 
locations range-wide. Year-to-year variation of these parameters at 
these sites would be examined and tracked. In addition, attempts will 
be made to match these monitoring site locations to locations within 
the range of Johnson's seagrass that have historical water quality data 
or currently have water quality data collections taking place.
    Comment 11: One commenter felt that a sufficient buffer distance 
should be included in the plan's recommendation to preserve natural 
shoreline buffers.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this comment and the need to define 
sufficient buffer distances. Recovery plan tasks 5.11 and 5.12 address 
the importance of preserving and acquiring natural shoreline buffers in 
the protection of Johnson's seagrass habitat. However, the plan does 
not include a fixed buffer distance since this distance can vary based 
on conditions, including local variation in topography and upland 
characteristics. Data on sufficient buffer distances are not currently 
available and developing this information is beyond the scope of this 
plan. State agencies such as the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection (FDEP), Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems or Aquatic 
Preserves Program; Water Management Districts; Florida Forever Act 
Program; or the State Comprehensive Plan may have Geographic 
Information System information on Florida shorelines and the future 
capability for developing broad-scale, standardized buffer distances.
    Comment 12: A few commenters requested clarification of the 
restoration recovery tasks. For recovery task 7.01, a commenter 
suggested to specifically reference ``both excavated vegetative 
fragments and naturally dislodged and free floating and 'intertidal 
driftline' vegetative fragments'' as sources for the proposed 
experiments.
    A second commenter was concerned that the development of 
restoration techniques and a restoration program can be seen by some as 
a way to avoid recovering the species in the wild. The commenter added 
that these programs should not become a substitute for addressing 
existing threats.
    A third commenter was concerned with identifying and using 
``superior stock'' of Johnson's seagrass for restoration purposes 
because ``the use of seagrass stock that is restricted in genetic 
variability could lead to over-representation of a particular genotype 
within the regional population.'' This commenter suggested a 
clarification of the term ``superior stock'' and how the use of such 
stock will account for maintaining genetic variability throughout the 
range of the species.
    Response: The recovery team further examined and edited this 
section. Recovery task 7.01 was rewritten to read, ``Conduct mesocosm 
and field experiments to test the feasibility of transplanting 
excavated and naturally-dislodged (free floating and intertidal 
driftline) vegetative fragments of H. johnsonii under a broad range of 
environmental conditions.''
    Recovery tasks 7.03, 7.04, and 7.05 were also rewritten and task 
7.06 was removed based upon comments. NMFS agrees that a restoration 
(or transplanting) program should not take precedence over addressing 
the existing threats to Johnson's seagrass or the recovery and 
protection of the species in the wild. NMFS believes it is possible, 
however, that the recovery of lost populations may be enhanced by 
transplantation of natural or cultivated vegetative fragments because 
of the limited or absent sexual reproduction in this species. The 
identification of superior stock characteristics of Johnson's seagrass 
and the maintenance of stocks with these characteristics can be a 
valuable tool in the restoration of damages or losses to the species. 
Care will have to be taken that any restoration does not have adverse 
effects on the species' genetic diversity. NMFS does not consider the 
identification and maintenance of superior stocks of Johnson's seagrass 
for restoration as a substitute for avoiding and minimizing impacts to 
the species or its critical habitat or a replacement to the protection 
and wise management of the species in the wild.
    Comment 13: One commenter suggested that the management section of 
the plan be expanded and that the plan address the issue of cooperation 
with the state of Florida under section 6 of the ESA.
    Response: NMFS recognizes the necessity of intergovernmental 
coordination in the protection of Johnson's seagrass and its habitat. A 
primary goal of the Johnson's seagrass recovery plan is to determine 
and implement habitat management needs and techniques for protection of 
the species. Specific management recovery tasks in the final plan that 
incorporate interagency cooperation, including state agencies, include 
tasks 5.03., 5.05., 5.09., and 5.13. A section 6 agreement under the 
ESA with may be one way to facilitate interagency coordination in the 
protection of Johnson's seagrass. NMFS will explore this option with 
the state of Florida.
    Comment 14: Various commenters suggested specific project 
methodologies and techniques be added to the recovery tasks. One 
commenter, for example, stated that many of the tasks do not contain 
detailed narratives as to how each recovery task will be implemented.
    Response: These comments offer valuable technical input. Specific 
methods or scientific procedures (such as for genetic sampling or the 
use of grating material for dock grating) used to implement recovery 
tasks will be developed according to the specific project design. The 
plan does not specify research methodologies in advance since 
methodologies and techniques used to complete these recovery tasks will 
be developed based on a project's goals and objectives, the current 
state of technology, and upon the decisions made by the primary 
investigator(s).
    Comment 15: A few commenters suggested that a summary or list of 
the recovery tasks or a prioritized list of the recovery tasks be added 
to the recovery plan.
    Response: Both a summary and a prioritized list have been added to 
the final recovery plan.
    Comment 16: One reviewer commented that the recovery plan is based 
on conjecture and speculation and that little, if anything, proposed in 
the plan would cause any recovery of the species.
    Response: The recovery plan is based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available at the time it was written. The basis for 
listing Johnson's seagrass' as threatened are human impacts on the 
plant and its habitat, the species' reproductive strategy, and its 
limited geographic distribution. Section 4(f) of the ESA directs NMFS 
to develop and implement a recovery plan for Johnson's seagrass, unless 
such a plan would not promote the conservation of the species. NMFS 
determined that a recovery plan would promote conservation and recovery 
of Johnson's seagrass. The Recovery Team and NMFS believe that the 
tasks defined and implemented will lead to the survival and recovery of 
H. johnsonii. The goal of the plan is the eventual delisting of the 
species.
    Comment 17: Numerous reviewers commented on implementation table 
costs, adequacy of funding, and availability of current funding. A few

[[Page 62233]]

commenters expressed concern for how the plan will be implemented and 
enforced.
    Response: NMFS is committed to the implementation of the Johnson's 
seagrass recovery plan and in establishing an implementation team to 
address research and management goals. NMFS agrees with the Johnson's 
Seagrass Recovery Team that the goals and objectives of this recovery 
plan can be achieved only if a long-term commitment is made to support 
the actions recommended here. Achieving these goals and objectives will 
require the cooperation of state and Federal government agencies as 
well as private individuals and organizations. Goals and objectives 
will be attained and funds expended contingent upon agency 
appropriations and priorities.
    Comment 18: Numerous commenters expressed support of the plan and 
described it as informative, well-written, and comprehensive. One of 
these commenters stated that the plan ``includes helpful research 
tasks, however, there is a lack of discussion regarding certain 
recovery tasks.'' The Florida Department of Community Affairs 
determined the plan to be consistent with the Florida Coastal 
Management Program.
    Response: The Johnson's seagrass Recovery Team was dedicated to 
producing a comprehensive and effective plan that will promote the 
protection and sustainability of Johnson's seagrass and its habitat. 
The introductory narratives for the eight major recovery tasks were 
reviewed and revised by the team for the final plan. Further discussion 
or clarification was made to the narratives and the specific recovery 
tasks as needed.

Recovery Task Priority Changes

    Priority 1 recovery tasks are actions that must be taken to prevent 
extinction or to identify those actions necessary to prevent 
extinction. An action that must be taken to prevent a significant 
decline in population numbers, habitat quality, or other significant 
negative impacts short of extinction is a priority 2 task. All other 
actions necessary to provide for full recovery of listed species are 
priority 3 tasks.
    NMFS has modified the priorities assigned to certain recovery tasks 
in the Implementation Schedule to better reflect NMFS guidance on 
priority rankings (55 FR 24296, June 14, 1990). These changes resulted 
in downgrading from priority 1 to 2 the following recovery tasks: 1.01, 
2.01, 2.02, 5.02, 5.10, 6.01, and 7.01. Recovery task 3.06 (with edits) 
was changed from priority 1 to priority 3. Recovery tasks downgraded 
from priority 2 to 3 include: 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 5.14, 7.02, and 8.05. 
Recovery task 5.09 was changed from priority 2 to priority 1. Recovery 
tasks 4.03 and 5.01 were changed from priority 3 to priority 2.
    Additional notable edits to the recovery tasks include the 
following:
    (a) 1.02, 1.03, and 1.05 in the draft plan were changed to recovery 
tasks 1.01A, 1.01B, and 1.01C, respectively, in the final plan.
    (b) 1.04 and 1.06 were combined into task 1.02.
    (c) 3.02 was changed to task 5.01.
    (d) 3.08 was rewritten and changed to 3.06.
    (e) 5.01 was rewritten and changed to 5.02.
    (f) 5.05 was merged into 5.06.
    (g) 5.10 was rewritten and changed to 5.14.
    (h) 7.02, 7.04, and 7.06 were combined to 7.03.
    (i) 7.03 was separated into tasks 7.02 and 7.04.

Implementation of the Plan

    NMFS is committed to the implementation of the Johnson's Seagrass 
Recovery Plan and to developing an implementation team to address 
research and management goals. A long-term management plan will be 
developed by an implementation team, and the approved Johnson's 
Seagrass Final Recovery Plan will be used to address and implement 
recovery strategies for H. johnsonii. The goals and objectives of the 
plan will be attained and funds expended contingent upon agency 
appropriations and priorities. The recovery plan and criteria may be 
revised in the future on the basis of new information. Public notice 
and an opportunity for public review and comment would be provided 
prior to final approval of a revised recovery plan.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 et seq.

    Dated: September 26, 2002.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-25328 Filed 10-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S