[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76262-76299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21226]
[[Page 76261]]
Vol. 85
Friday,
No. 229
November 27, 2020
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for the Threatened
Indo-Pacific Corals; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 76262]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223 and 226
[Docket No: 200918-0249]
RIN 0648-BJ52
Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for the
Threatened Indo-Pacific Corals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to
designate critical habitat for the seven threatened corals in U.S.
waters in the Indo-Pacific (Acropora globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae,
Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora
crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata) pursuant to section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Seventeen specific occupied areas
containing physical features essential to the conservation of these
coral species are being proposed for designation as critical habitat;
these areas contain approximately 600 square kilometers (km\2\; 230
square miles) of marine habitat. We have considered positive and
negative economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of the
proposed designations, and we propose to exclude two areas from the
critical habitat designations due to anticipated impacts on national
security. We are soliciting comments from the public on all aspects of
the proposal, including our identification of the geographical area and
depths occupied by the species, the physical and biological feature
essential to the coral species' conservation and identification, areas
not included and excluded, and consideration of impacts of the proposed
action.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by January 26, 2021.
Public hearings: If requested, we will hold at least one public
hearing on this proposed rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number
NOAA-NMFS-2016-0131, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0131 click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Lance Smith, Protected Resources Division, NMFS,
Pacific Islands Regional Office, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, 1845 Wasp
Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the previously
described methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider
them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and
will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do
not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required
fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Smith, NMFS, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, 808-725-5131, [email protected]; or, Celeste Stout,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8436,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 4(b) of the ESA
(16 U.S.C. 1533) and our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), this
proposed rule is based on the best scientific information available
concerning the range, biology, habitat, threats to the habitat, and
conservation objectives for the seven threatened corals in U.S. waters
of the Indo-Pacific (Acropora globiceps, A. jacquelineae, A. retusa, A.
speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora
aculeata). We reviewed the available information and have used it to
identify physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of each coral, the specific areas within the occupied areas that
contain the essential physical and biological features that may require
special management considerations or protections, the Federal
activities that may impact the physical or biological features or
areas, and the potential impacts of designating critical habitat for
these seven Indo-Pacific corals. The economic, national security, and
other relevant impacts of the proposed critical habitat designations
for these coral species are described in the draft document titled,
``Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat Information Report: Basis and
Impact Considerations of Critical Habitat Designations for Threatened
Indo-Pacific Corals,'' hereafter referred to as the Draft Information
Report (NMFS, 2019). This supporting document is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, at www.regulations.gov, or upon request
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
We listed 20 coral species as threatened under the ESA on September
10, 2014 (79 FR 53851). Although 15 of the listed species occur in the
Indo-Pacific, only 7 of the listed coral species have been found in
U.S. waters: A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae, A. retusa, A. speciosa, E.
paradivisa, I. crateriformis, and S. aculeata. These seven species have
been found in the U.S. jurisdictions of American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and the Pacific
Remote Island Area (PRIA). The final listing determinations were based
on the best available information on a suite of demographic, spatial,
and susceptibility components that influence the species' vulnerability
to extinction in the face of continuing threats over the foreseeable
future. All 20 listed species have undergone some level of population
decline and are susceptible to multiple threats, including: Ocean
warming, diseases, ocean acidification, ecological effects of fishing,
and land-based sources of pollution. We found that aspects of the
species' demography and distribution buffer the effects of these
threats. Although we have no information that indicates that these
species are currently in danger of extinction, we determined that they
all are likely to become endangered throughout all of their ranges
within the foreseeable future as a result of a combination of threats,
the most severe of which are related to climate change. As such, we
listed them as threatened. The following proposed rule is based on our
Draft Information Report and peer review comments on the report. All of
the information that we used to make our determinations in this
proposed rule is contained in that report. The Draft Information Report
is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, at
www.regulations.gov, or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Natural History
This section summarizes life history and biological characteristics
of Indo-
[[Page 76263]]
Pacific reef-building corals to provide context for the identification
of the physical and biological feature essential for the conservation
of these species. In this section, we cover several topic areas
including an introduction to reef-building corals, as well as
reproduction, settlement and growth, coral habitat types, and coral
reef ecosystems. There is little species-specific information available
on the life history, reproductive biology, and ecology for the seven
corals that occur in U.S. waters of the Indo-Pacific, because many of
the several hundred Indo-Pacific reef-building corals resemble one
another, thus most investigations to date have been at the genus level.
We provide specific information for each species where possible. In
addition, we provide general information on the biology and ecology of
the Indo-Pacific corals, highlighting traits that these seven corals
share. The information below is largely summarized from the final
listing rule (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014), and it has been updated
with the best available scientific information to date. The seven ESA-
listed Indo-Pacific corals are reef-building corals. Reef-building
corals, in the phylum Cnidaria, are marine invertebrates that occur as
polyps. The Cnidaria include true stony corals (class Anthozoa, order
Scleractinia), the blue coral (class Anthozoa, order Helioporacea), and
fire corals (class Hydrozoa, order Milleporina). These species secrete
massive calcium carbonate skeletons that form the physical structure of
coral reefs. Reef-building coral species collectively produce coral
reefs over time in high-growth conditions, but they also occur in non-
reef habitats. That is, they are reef-building, but not reef-dependent.
About 90 percent of the world's approximately 800 reef-building coral
species occur in the Indo-Pacific (Veron, 2000). These unique animals
contain symbiotic algae within their cells, they produce clones of
themselves by different means, and most of them occur as colonies of
polyps. Polyps are the building blocks of colonies, and colony growth
occurs both by increasing the number of polyps, as well as extending
the supporting skeleton under each polyp.
Reef-building corals are able to grow and thrive in the
characteristically nutrient-poor environments of tropical and
subtropical regions due to their ability to form mutually beneficial
symbioses with unicellular photosynthetic algae (zooxanthellae) living
within the host coral's tissues. Zooxanthellae belong to the
dinoflagellate genus Symbiodinium and provide nutrition to the host
coral by translocating fixed organic carbon and other nutrients. In
return, they receive inorganic waste metabolites from host respiration
as well as protection from grazing. This exchange of nutrients allows
both partners to flourish and helps the coral secrete the calcium
carbonate that forms the skeletal structure of the coral colony, which
in turn contributes to the formation of the reef. Thus, reef-building
corals are also known as zooxanthellate corals. Some corals do not
contain zooxanthellae, and these species form much smaller skeletons,
and therefore are not considered reef-building. The seven ESA-listed
Indo-Pacific corals discussed in this proposed rule are zooxanthellate
species, and thus are reef-building, because they contain symbiotic
algae in their cells, enabling them to grow large skeletons that
contribute to the physical structure of coral reefs.
Coral polyps can occur as free-living, solitary polyps (e.g.,
fungiids) or as colonies of polyps, depending on the species. Most
reef-building coral species are colonial, producing colonies made up of
dozens to thousands of polyps that are connected seamlessly through
tissue and skeleton. In a colonial species, a single larva will develop
into a discrete unit (the primary polyp) that then produces modular
units of itself (i.e., genetically-identical copies, or clones, of the
primary polyp, otherwise known as clones). Each polyp consists of a
column with mouth and tentacles on the upper side growing on top of a
calcium carbonate skeleton, which the polyps produce through the
process of calcification. Colony growth is achieved mainly through the
addition of more cloned polyps. The colony can continue to exist even
if numerous polyps die, or if the colony is broken apart or otherwise
damaged. The seven listed Indo-Pacific corals are all colonial species,
although polyp size, colony size, and colony morphology vary
considerably by species and also based on environmental variables in
different habitats. Colonies themselves can produce clones, most
commonly through fragmentation or budding (described in more detail
below). Clones can also be produced in some species by asexual larvae
or polyp bail-out (a rare case when an individual polyp breaks away
from the colony due to poor environmental conditions and re-settles
elsewhere). The seven listed Indo-Pacific corals are all clonal
species, both as colonies of cloned polyps, and with the ability to
produce clones of individual colonies. The way they produce colony-
level clones varies by species. For example, branching species are much
more likely than encrusting species to produce clones via
fragmentation; Brainard et al., 2011).
Corals use a number of diverse reproductive strategies that have
been researched extensively; however, many individual species'
reproductive modes remain poorly described. Most coral species use both
sexual and asexual propagation. Sexual reproduction in corals is
primarily through gametogenesis (i.e., development of eggs and sperm
within the polyps). Some coral species have separate sexes
(gonochoric), while others are hermaphroditic. Strategies for
fertilization are either by brooding (internal fertilization) or
broadcast spawning (external fertilization). Asexual reproduction in
coral species most commonly involves fragmentation, by which colony
pieces or fragments are dislodged from larger colonies and establish
new colonies, although the budding of new polyps within a colony can
also be considered asexual reproduction. In many species of branching
corals, fragmentation is a common and sometimes dominant means of
propagation (79 FR 53852, September 10, 2014).
Of the seven listed Indo-Pacific species, A. retusa, A. globiceps,
and A. jacquelineae are all hermaphroditic spawners. The reproductive
characteristics of A. speciosa have not yet been determined, but most
other Acropora species are also hermaphroditic spawners. Euphyllia
paradivisa's reproductive mode is unknown and other Euphyllia species
exhibit a variety of reproductive characteristics, so it is unclear
which is most probable for the species. The reproductive
characteristics of I. crateriformis and S. aculeata have also not been
determined, but other similar species of both Isopora and Seriatopora
are simultaneous hermaphroditic brooders. As for skeletal growth, there
is no species-specific information available, but branching Acropora
species such as the four listed Acropora species are typically
relatively fast-growing (Brainard et al., 2011).
Coral larvae presumably experience considerable mortality from
predation or other factors prior to settlement and metamorphosis. Such
mortality cannot be directly observed, but is inferred from the large
number of eggs and sperm spawned versus the much smaller number of
recruits observed later. Little is known concerning the settlement
patterns of planulae (free-swimming larvae) of the listed Indo-Pacific
corals. In general, upon proper
[[Page 76264]]
stimulation, coral larvae, whether released from parental colonies or
developed in the water column external to the parental colonies (like
Acropora spp.), settle and metamorphose on appropriate substrates.
Biological and physical factors that have been shown to affect spatial
and temporal patterns of coral recruitment include substrate
availability and community structure, grazing pressure, fecundity, mode
and timing of reproduction, behavior of larvae, hurricane disturbance,
physical oceanography, the structure of established coral assemblages,
and chemical cues. Like most corals, the listed Indo-Pacific corals
require hard, consolidated substrate, including attached, dead coral
skeleton, for their larvae to settle. Algal growth limits the amount of
hard substrate available to coral settlement, and a low nutrient
environment is less conducive to algal growth. Once larvae are able to
settle onto appropriate hard substrate, metabolic energy is diverted to
colony growth and maintenance.
Reef-building corals combine calcium and carbonate ions derived
from seawater into crystals that form their skeletons. Skeletal
expansion rates vary greatly by taxa, morphology, location, habitat and
other factors. For example, in general, branching species (e.g., most
Acropora species) have much higher skeletal extension rates than
massive species (e.g., massive Porites species). The energy required to
produce new polyps and build calcium carbonate skeleton is provided by
the symbiotic relationship corals have with photosynthetic
zooxanthellae. The zooxanthellae require light to photosynthesize, thus
lower water clarity (i.e., poor transparency) reduces the host coral's
energy, growth and survival by limiting the amount of light that
penetrates the water. Lower water clarity sharply reduces
photosynthesis in zooxanthellae with moderate reductions in adult
colony survival and calcification. The skeletons of coral colonies are
bound together by cementation, resulting in the formation of coral
reefs. Species with high recruitment rates or fast growth rates may
have the ability to recover more quickly from disturbances.
Additionally, long-lived species with large colony size can sustain
partial mortality (fission) and still have the potential for
persistence and regrowth (79 FR 53852, September 10, 2014). Additional
information on the biological requirements for reproduction,
settlement, and growth is provided below in the Physical and Biological
Features Essential for Conservation section.
Shallow coral reefs are fragile ecosystems that exist in a narrow
band of environmental conditions that allow the skeletons of reef-
building coral species to grow quickly enough for reef accretion to
outpace reef erosion. High-growth conditions for reef-building corals
include clear, warm waters with abundant light, and low levels of
nutrients, sediments, and freshwater. The three broad categories of
coral reefs are fringing reefs, barrier reefs, and atolls. Fringing
reefs are mostly close to coastlines, and usually have a high component
of non-carbonate sediment. Barrier reefs are offshore and are composed
of wave-resistant consolidated limestone. Atolls are usually a wall of
reefs partially or completely enclosing a central lagoon. There are not
sharp differences that clearly mark boundaries between reef types. For
example, fringing reefs gradually become barrier reefs with increasing
distance from shore. Also, the shape of both barrier reefs and atolls
is largely determined by the bathymetry of the substratum, producing
many irregularly shaped reefs that are intermediary between the two
types. Isolated reefs that do not fit any of these descriptions are
referred to as platform reefs. Despite the differences between the reef
categories, most fringing reefs, barrier reefs, atolls, and platform
reefs consist of a reef slope, a reef crest, and a back-reef, which in
turn are typically characterized by distinctive habitats. The
characteristics of coral reef habitat vary greatly by reef categories,
locations, latitudes, frequency of disturbance, etc., and there is also
much variability within each habitat type. Temporal variability in
coral habitat conditions is also very high, both cyclically (e.g., from
tidal, seasonal, annual, and decadal cycles) and episodically (e.g.,
storms, temperature anomalies, etc.). Together, all these factors
contribute to the habitat heterogeneity of coral reefs across the Indo-
Pacific, as described in more detail in the final listing rule (79 FR
53852; September 10, 2014).
As described previously, reef-building corals are not dependent on
coral reefs, and many of these species can thrive in low-growth
conditions where skeletal growth is inadequate to result in accretion
of coral reefs. ``Non-reef habitat'' refers to hard substrates where
reef-building corals can grow, including marginal habitats where
conditions prevent reef development (e.g., turbid or high-latitude or
upwelling-influenced areas) and recently available habitat (e.g., lava
flows). All the listed species can occur in both shallow coral reef and
non-reef habitats, provided that hard substrate and suitable water
quality are present. The term ``mesophotic habitat'' refers to hard
substrates deeper than 30 m. Shallow coral reefs, non-reef habitats,
and mesophotic habitats are not necessarily sharply delineated from one
another, thus one may gradually blend into another. The total area of
non-reef and mesophotic habitats is likely greater than the total area
of shallow coral reef habitats within the ranges of the listed corals
(79 FR 53852; September 10, 2014). Despite the large amount of
variability in habitats occupied by corals, they have several
characteristics in common that provide the fundamental support
necessary for coral settlement and growth, including hard substrate and
low-nutrient, clear water with good light penetration.
The seven listed Indo-Pacific species within U.S. waters vary in
their recorded depth ranges and habitat types. Acropora globiceps
occurs on upper reef slopes, reef flats, and adjacent habitats. In the
final listing rule, the best available information indicated this
species occurs in depths ranging from 0 to 8 meters (m). However, in
2015, we learned that A. globiceps has been observed in American Samoa
at 11 m (Asili, Tutuila) and 18 m in the National Park of American
Samoa on the north side of Tutuila (D. Fenner, pers. comm., 2015).
Based on the new information, we consider the rangewide depth
distributions of A. globiceps to be 0 to 20 m. Acropora jacquelineae is
found in numerous subtidal reef slope and back-reef habitats, including
but not limited to, lower reef slopes, walls and ledges, mid-slopes,
and upper reef slopes protected from wave action, and its depth range
is 10 to 35 m (D. Fenner, pers. comm. 2015). Acropora retusa occurs in
shallow reef slope and back-reef areas, such as upper reef slopes, reef
flats, and shallow lagoons. In the final listing rule, the best
available information indicated its depth range to be 0 to 5 m. In
2015, we learned that A. retusa has been observed in American Samoa at
10 m near Asili on Tutuila Island (D. Fenner, pers. comm. 2015). Based
on the previously described new information combined with the fact that
it's almost always found in shallower waters, we consider the rangewide
depth distribution of A. retusa to be 0 to 10 m in this rule. Acropora
speciosa occurs on lower reef slopes and walls, especially those
characterized by clear water and high Acropora diversity, in a depth
range of 12 to 40 m (Veron, 2014). Euphyllia paradivisa is found in
environments protected from wave action on at least upper reef slopes,
mid-
[[Page 76265]]
slope terraces, and lagoons at a depth range of 2 to 25 m (Veron,
2014). Isopora crateriformis's predominant habitat is shallow, high-
wave energy environments, including reef flats and reef crests, and it
also occurs in adjacent habitats such as upper reef slopes. It has a
depth distribution of 0 to 12 m, and has been reported as common at 5
to 10 m (D. Fenner, pers. comm. 2015). Seriatopora aculeata occurs in a
broad range of habitats on the reef slope and back reef, including but
not limited to upper reef slopes, mid-slope terraces, lower reef
slopes, reef flats, and lagoons in a depth range of 3 to 40 m (Veron,
2014).
In summary, based on the best currently available information, we
consider the rangewide depth distributions of the seven listed species
as follows: A. globiceps, 0 to 20 m; A. jacquelineae, 10 to 35 m; A.
retusa, 0 to 10 m; A. speciosa, 12 to 40 m; E. paradivisa, 2 to 25 m;
I. crateriformis, 0 to 12 m; and S. aculeata, 3 to 40 m (Table 1).
Table 1--Confirmed Geographic and Depth Distributions of Threatened Indo-Pacific Corals in the U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdiction Am Samoa Mariana Islands (Guam and CNMI) Pacific Remote Island Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit \1\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. globiceps, (0-20 m)..................................... X X X X X X X X X X X X X ..... X X ..... X .....
A. jacquelineae, (10-35 m)................................. X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
A. retusa, (0-10 m)........................................ X X X X X ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... X X X X
A. speciosa, (12-40 m)..................................... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... .....
E. paradivisa, (2-40 m).................................... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
I. crateriformis, (0-12 m)................................. X X X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
S. aculeata, (3-40 m)...................................... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depths of all listed spp.\2\........................... a b b b a b b b a b b b b c B a c b c
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unit Key: (1) Tutuila & Offshore Banks; (2) Ofu & Olosega; (3) Ta'u; (4) Rose Atoll; (5) Guam & Offshore Banks; (6) Rota; (7) Aguijian; (8) Tinian and Tatsumi Reef; (9) Saipan and Garapan
Bank; (10) Farallon de Medinilla; (11) Anatahan; (12) Pagan; (13) Maug Islands & Supply Reef; (14) Howland Island; (15) Palmyra Atoll; (16) Kingman Reef; (17) Johnston Atoll; (18) Wake
Atoll; and (19) Jarvis Island.
\2\ Depth Key: (a) 0-40 m; (b) 0-20 m; (c) 0-10 m.
Species identification of many Indo-Pacific reef-building corals is
challenging, even for experts who have worked in the field for decades.
There are a multitude of reasons for this, including: Poor quality type
specimens; lack of samples to verify photos; inter-specific and intra-
specific morphological plasticity and variability; inherent human
subjectivity; and unreliable published information. For the seven
listed species considered here, current species identification
uncertainty is rated as moderate or high for six species (all but E.
paradivisa). In addition, because traditional coral identification is
based on colony morphological characteristics, and recent genetics
results often contradict morphological identifications, species
identification uncertainty is predicted to increase for most of these
species (Fenner, 2015).
Critical Habitat Identification and Designation
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to identify the
areas that are essential to the species' recovery. Once critical
habitat is designated, it can contribute to the conservation of listed
species in several ways, including by identifying areas where Federal
agencies can focus their section 7(a)(1) conservation programs, and
helping focus the efforts of other conservation partners, such as
States and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and
individuals (81 FR 7414, February 11, 2016). Designating critical
habitat also provides a significant regulatory protection by ensuring
that the Federal government considers the effects of its actions in
accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and avoids or modifies those
actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. This requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement
that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species. Critical
habitat requirements do not apply to citizens engaged in activities on
private land that do not involve a Federal agency.
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as (i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of
the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the ESA,
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). Conservation is
defined in section 3 of the ESA as the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this chapter are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Therefore,
critical habitat is the habitat essential for the species' recovery.
However, section 3(5)(C) of the ESA clarifies that, except in those
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the
threatened or endangered species.
To identify and designate critical habitat, we considered
information on the distribution of the seven threatened Indo-Pacific
corals, their major life stages, habitat requirements of those life
stages, threats to the species, and conservation objectives that can be
supported by identifiable essential physical or biological features
(hereafter also referred to as ``PBFs'' or ``essential features''). In
the final listing rule, ocean warming, diseases, ocean acidification,
trophic effects of reef fishing, nutrient enrichment, sedimentation,
and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms were found to be the main
threats contributing to the threatened status of all seven corals.
Several other threats also contributed to the species' statuses, but
were considered to be relatively lower in importance as compared to the
main threats. Therefore, we evaluated physical and biological features
of their habitats to determine what features are essential to the
conservation of each coral.
Accordingly, our step-wise approach for identifying potential
critical habitat areas for the threatened corals was to determine: (1)
The geographical area occupied by each coral at the time of listing;
(2) the physical or biological
[[Page 76266]]
features essential to the conservation of the corals; (3) whether those
features may require special management considerations or protection;
(4) the specific areas of the occupied geographical area where these
features occur; and, (5) whether any unoccupied areas are essential to
the conservation of any of the corals.
Geographical Area Occupied by the Species
``Geographical area occupied'' in the definition of critical
habitat is interpreted to mean the entire range of the species at the
time it was listed, inclusive of all areas they use and move through
seasonally (81 FR 7413; February 11, 2016). We did not consider
geographical areas outside of the United States because we cannot
designate critical habitat areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR
424.12(g)). As noted previously, seven of the listed species have been
confirmed within U.S. Pacific Islands waters (Table 1), and only these
seven are currently being considered for critical habitat designation.
We first identified the U.S. jurisdictional areas where observations of
listed coral species have been confirmed. In summary, six listed
species are confirmed in American Samoa (A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae,
A. speciosa, A. retusa, I. crateriformis, and E. paradivisa); three
listed species are confirmed in Guam and CNMI (A. globiceps, A. retusa,
and S. aculeata); and three listed species are confirmed in PRIA (A.
globiceps, A. retusa, and A. speciosa). We further broke down the areas
under consideration for critical habitat designation into 19 units
based on information on the confirmed locations of each species within
these jurisdictions, in order to better describe the geographic areas
occupied by each species. The units generally consist of individual
islands or atolls and nearby shoals or banks. Table 1 shows the
distributions of the seven listed species by both jurisdiction and
critical habitat unit. The proposed units are shown in the figures at
the end of this rule. More detailed information on the distributions of
the seven listed species in these units is provided in the Draft
Information Report (NMFS, 2019).
Physical or Biological Features Essential for Conservation
Within the geographical area occupied, critical habitat consists of
specific areas on which are found those PBFs essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protection. PBFs essential to the conservation of the
species are defined as the features that occur in specific areas and
that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species,
including water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites,
prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may
be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of
habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics
that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also
be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity (50 CFR
424.02).
In the final listing rule, we determined that the seven corals were
threatened under the ESA. This means that while the species are not in
danger of extinction currently, they are likely to become so within the
next several decades based on their current abundances and trends in
abundance, distributions, and threats they experience now and in the
future. The goal of an ESA listing is to first prevent extinction, and
then to recover the species so they no longer meet the definition of a
threatened species and no longer need the protections of the ESA. One
of the first steps in recovery planning we completed after listing
these coral species was to develop a Recovery Outline that contains a
Recovery Vision, which describes what the state of full recovery looks
like for the species. We identified the following Recovery Vision for
the 15 Indo-Pacific corals listed in 2014, including the 7 species
covered by this critical habitat rule: Populations of the 15 listed
Indo-Pacific corals should be present throughout as much of their
historical ranges as future environmental changes will allow, and may
expand their ranges into new locations with more favorable habitat
conditions in the future (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/15-indo-pacific-coral-species-recovery-outline). Recovery of
these species will require conservation of the coral reef ecosystem
through threats abatement to ensure a high probability of survival into
the future (NMFS, 2015). The key conservation objective that
facilitates this Recovery Vision, and that can be assisted through
these critical habitat designations, is supporting successful
reproduction and recruitment, and survival and growth of all life
stages, by abating threats to the corals' habitats. In the final
listing rule, we identified the major threats contributing to the seven
corals' extinction risk: Ocean warming, disease, ocean acidification,
trophic effects of reef fishing, nutrient enrichment, and
sedimentation. Five of the six major threats (i.e., all but disease)
impact corals in part by changing the corals' habitat, making it
unsuitable for them to carry out the essential functions at all life
stages. Although it was not considered to be posing a major threat at
the time of listing, we also identified contaminants as a potential
threat to each of these corals (79 FR 53852, September 10, 2014). Thus,
we identify ocean warming, ocean acidification, trophic effects of reef
fishing, nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, and contaminants as the
threats to the seven corals' habitat that are impeding their recovery.
Protecting essential features of the corals' habitat from these threats
will facilitate the Recovery Vision.
We then turned to determining the physical or biological features
essential to this conservation objective of supporting successful
reproduction and recruitment, and survival and growth of all life
stages. Specifically, we evaluated whether particular habitat features
will facilitate recovery through enhancing population growth. There are
many physical and biological features that are important in supporting
the corals' habitat; therefore, we focused on a composite habitat
feature that supports the conservation objective through its relevance
to the major threats and threats impeding recovery. The essential
feature we ultimately identified is sites with a complex combination of
substrate and water column characteristics that support normal
functions of all life stages of the corals. Due to corals being sessile
for almost their entire life cycle, they carry out most of their
demographic functions in one location. Thus, we have identified sites
with a combination of certain substrate and water column
characteristics as the essential feature. A detailed discussion of how
this feature was determined will follow. Specifically, these sites have
attributes that determine the quality of the appropriate attachment
substrate, in association with warm, aragonite-supersaturated,
oligotrophic, clear marine water, which are essential to reproduction
and recruitment, survival, and growth of all life stages of all seven
species of coral. These sites can be impacted by ocean acidification
and ocean warming, trophic effects of reef fishing, nutrient
enrichment, sedimentation, and contamination.
Based on the best scientific information available we identify the
following physical feature essential to the conservation of the seven
corals. Our proposed definition for the essential feature is:
[[Page 76267]]
Reproductive, recruitment, growth, and maturation habitat. Sites
that support the normal function of all life stages of the corals are
natural, consolidated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton free of
algae and sediment at the appropriate scale at the point of larval
settlement or fragment reattachment, and the associated water column.
Several attributes of these sites determine the quality of the area and
influence the value of the associated feature to the conservation of
the species:
(1) Substrate with presence of crevices and holes that provide
cryptic habitat, the presence of microbial biofilms, or presence of
crustose coralline algae;
(2) Reefscape (all the visible features of an area of reef) with no
more than a thin veneer of sediment and low occupancy by fleshy and
turf macroalgae;
(3) Marine water with levels of temperature, aragonite saturation,
nutrients, and water clarity that have been observed to support any
demographic function; and
(4) Marine water with levels of anthropogenically-introduced (from
humans) chemical contaminants that do not preclude or inhibit any
demographic function.
As described in detail in the Draft Information Report (NMFS,
2019), all corals require exposed natural consolidated hard substrate
for the settlement and recruitment of larvae or asexual fragments.
Substrate provides the physical surface and space necessary for
settlement of coral larvae, a stable environment for metamorphosis of
the larvae into the primary polyp, growth of juvenile and adult
colonies, and re-attachment of fragments. Larvae can settle and attach
to dead coral skeleton (Brainard et al., 2011). A number of attributes
have been shown to influence coral larval settlement. Positive cues
include the presence of crustose coralline algae (Heyward and Negri,
1999), biofilms (Webster et al., 2004), and cryptic habitat such as
crevices and holes (Nozawa, 2008). Attributes that negatively affect
settlement include presence of sediment and algae (Vermeij et al.,
2009). Coral recruitment tends to be greater when macroalgal biomass is
low (Birrell et al., 2005). In addition to preempting space for coral
larvae settlement, many fleshy macroalgae produce substances that may
inhibit larval settlement, recruitment, and survival (Jompa and McCook,
2003). Furthermore, algal turfs can trap sediments (Purcell and
Bellwood, 2001), which then create the potential for algal turfs and
sediments to act in combination to hinder coral settlement (Birrell et
al., 2005).
Presence and amount of sediment is a particularly important
determinant of the quality of substrate for reef-building coral
habitat. Sediments enter the reef environment through many processes
that are natural or anthropogenic in origin, including erosion of the
coastline, resuspension of bottom sediments, terrestrial run-off, and
nearshore dredging for coastal construction projects and navigation
purposes. The rate of sedimentation affects reef distribution,
community structure, growth rates, and coral recruitment (Dutra et al.,
2006). Sediment accumulation on dead coral skeletons and exposed hard
substrate reduces the amount of available substrate for coral larvae
settlement and fragment reattachment (Rogers, 1990). Sediment impedes
settlement of coral larvae (Babcock and Smith, 2002). The deeper the
sediment, the longer it may take for natural waves and currents to
remove the sediment from the settlement substrate. Sediment texture
also affects the severity of impacts to corals and recruitment
substrate. Fine grain sediments have greater negative effects to live
coral tissue and to recruitment substrate (Erftemeijer et al., 2012).
Accumulation of sediments is also a major cause of mortality in coral
recruits (Fabricius et al., 2003). In some instances, if mortality of
coral recruits does not occur under heavy sediment conditions, then
settled coral planulae may undergo reverse metamorphosis and die in the
water column (Te, 1992). Accumulation of sediment can smother living
corals, cover dead coral skeleton, and exposed hard substrate
(Erftemeijer et al., 2012; Fabricius, 2005). Sedimentation, therefore,
impacts the health and survivorship of all life stages of corals (i.e.,
adults, fragments, larvae, and recruits).
The literature provides several recommendations on maximum sediment
levels for coral reefs (i.e., levels that managers should strive to
stay under). De'ath and Fabricius (2008) and the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA 2010) recommend that sediment levels on
the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) be less than a mean annual sedimentation
rate of 3 mg/cm\2\/day, and less than a daily maximum of 15 mg/cm\2\/
day. Rogers (1990) recommends that sediment levels on coral reefs
globally be less than a mean maximum of 10 mg/cm\2\/day to maintain
healthy corals, and also notes that moderate to severe effects on
corals are generally expected at mean maximum sedimentation rates of 10
to 50 mg/cm\2\/day, and severe to catastrophic effects at >50 mg/cm\2\/
day. Similarly, Erftemeijer et al. (2012) suggests that moderate to
severe effects to corals are expected at mean maximum sediment levels
of >10 mg/cm\2\/day, and catastrophic effects at >50 mg/cm\2\/day.
Nelson et al. (2016) suggests that sediment depths of >0.5 cm result in
substantial stress to most coral species, and that sediment depths of
>1.0 cm are lethal to most coral species. The previously described
generalizations are for coral reef communities and ecosystems, rather
than individual species.
Sublethal effects of sediment to corals potentially occur at much
lower levels than mortality. Sublethal effects include reduced growth,
lower calcification rates and reduced productivity, bleaching,
increased susceptibility to diseases, physical damage to coral tissue
and reef structures (breaking, abrasion), and reduced regeneration from
tissue damage (see reviews by Fabricius et al., 2005; Erftemeijer et
al., 2012; Browne et al., 2015; and Rogers, 1990). Erftemeijer et al.
(2012) states that sublethal effects for coral species that are
sensitive, intermediate, or tolerant to sediment (i.e., most reef-
building coral species) occur at mean maximum sedimentation rates of
between <10 and 200 mg/cm\2\/day, depending on species, exposure
duration, and other factors.
Finally, artificial substrates and frequently disturbed ``managed
areas'' are not essential to coral conservation. Only natural
substrates provide the quality and quantity of recruitment habitat
necessary for the conservation of threatened corals. Artificial
substrates are generally less functional than natural substrates in
terms of supporting healthy and diverse coral reef ecosystems (Edwards
and Gomez, 2007; USFWS, 2004). Artificial substrates are typically man-
made or introduced substrates that are not naturally occurring to the
area. Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to, fixed and
floating structures, such as aids-to-navigation (AToNs), jetties,
groins, breakwaters, seawalls, wharves, boat ramps, fishpond walls,
pipes, wrecks, mooring balls, docks, aquaculture cages, and other
artificial substrates. Our definition of recruitment substrate does not
include any artificial substrate. In addition, there are some natural
substrates that, because of their consistently disturbed nature, also
do not provide the quality of substrate necessary for the conservation
of threatened corals. While these areas may provide hard substrate for
coral settlement and growth over short periods, the periodic nature of
direct human disturbance renders them poor environments for coral
growth and
[[Page 76268]]
survival over time (e.g., they can become covered with sediment).
Therefore, they are not essential to the conservation of the species.
Specific areas that may contain these disturbed natural substrates are
described in the Specific Areas Containing the Essential Features
within the Geographical Areas Occupied by the Species section of this
proposed rule.
The substrate characterized previously must be associated with
water that also supports all life functions of corals that are carried
out at the site. Water quality conditions fluctuate greatly over
various spatial and temporal scales in natural reef environments
(Kleypas et al., 1999). However, certain levels of particular
parameters (e.g., water clarity, water temperature, aragonite
saturation) must exist on average to provide the conditions conducive
to coral growth, reproduction, and recruitment. Corals may tolerate and
survive in conditions outside these levels, depending on the local
conditions to which they have acclimatized and the intensity and
duration of any deviations from conditions conducive to a particular
coral's growth, reproduction and recruitment. Deviations from tolerance
levels of certain parameters result in direct negative effects on all
life stages.
As described in the Draft Information Report, corals thrive in
warm, clear, nutrient-poor marine waters with calcium carbonate
concentrations that allow for symbiont photosynthesis, coral
physiological processes and skeleton formation. This water must also
have low to no levels of contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, chemicals)
that would interfere with normal functions of all life stages. Water
quality that supports normal functions of corals is adversely affected
by ocean warming, ocean acidification, nutrient enrichment,
sedimentation, and contamination.
Seawater temperature is a particularly important limiting factor of
coral habitat, and consequently ocean warming is one of the most
important threats to reef-building corals. Corals occur in a wide
temperature range across geographic locations (15.7[deg]C-35.5[deg]C
weekly average and 21.7-29.6[deg]C annual average; Guan et al., 2015),
but only thrive in areas with mean temperatures in a narrow range
(typically 25[deg]C-29[deg]C) as indicated by the global distribution
of coral reefs (Brainard et al., 2011; Kleypas et al., 1999). Short-
term exposures (days) to temperature increases of a few degrees (i.e.,
3[deg]C-4[deg]C increase above mean maximum summer temperature) or
long-term exposures (several weeks) to minor temperature increases
(i.e., 1[deg]C-2[deg]C above mean maximum summer temperature) can cause
significant thermal stress and mortality to most coral species
(Berkelmans and Willis, 1999; Jokiel and Coles, 1990). In addition to
coral bleaching, elevated seawater temperatures impair coral
fertilization and settlement (Nozawa and Harrison, 2007) and cause
increases in coral disease (Miller et al., 2009).
Effects of elevated seawater temperatures are well-studied for
reef-building corals, and many approaches have been used to estimate
temperature thresholds for coral bleaching and mortality (see reviews
by Brown, 1997; Berkelmans, 2002; Coles and Brown, 2003; Jokiel, 2004;
Baker et al., 2007; Jones, 2008; Coles and Riegl, 2013). The tolerance
of corals to temperature is species-specific (van Woesik et al., 2011;
Vega-Rodriguez, 2016) and depends on suites of other variables that
include acclimation temperature, aragonite saturation state, dissolved
inorganic nitrogen (Cunning and Baker, 2012; Fabricius, 2005;
Wooldridge, 2013); and physical, physiological, and chemical stressors,
including suspended sediments and turbidity (Anthony et al., 2007;
Woods et al., 2016); trace metals such as copper (Negri and Hoogenboom,
2011; Woods et al., 2016); ultraviolet radiation (Anthony et al.,
2007); and salinity, nitrates, and phosphates (Negri and Hoogenboom,
2011).
Ocean warming is one of the most significant threats to the seven
ESA-listed Indo-Pacific corals. Mean seawater temperatures in reef-
building coral habitat in the Indo-Pacific have increased during the
past few decades, and are predicted to continue to rise between now and
2100 (IPCC, 2013). The primary observable coral response to ocean
warming is bleaching of adult coral colonies, wherein corals expel
their symbiotic zooxanthellae in response to stress (Brown, 1997). Even
so, evaluating the effects that changes in water temperatures have on
the conservation value of coral habitat is very complex and
contextually-driven, and simple numeric effect thresholds are not
easily assigned to listed corals to establish when stress responses
occur. For many corals, an episodic increase of only 1[deg]C-2[deg]C
above the normal local seasonal maximum ocean temperature can induce
bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007; Jones, 2008). Corals can
withstand mild to moderate bleaching; however, severe, repeated, or
prolonged bleaching can lead to colony death (Brown, 1997). In addition
to coral bleaching, other effects of ocean warming detrimentally affect
virtually every life-history stage in reef-building corals. Impaired
fertilization and developmental abnormalities (Negri and Heyward,
2000), mortality, and impaired settlement success (Nozawa and Harrison,
2007) have all been documented. Increased seawater temperature also may
act synergistically with coral diseases to reduce coral health and
survivorship (Bruno and Selig, 2007). Coral disease outbreaks often
have either accompanied or immediately followed bleaching events (Jones
et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2009). Outbreaks also follow seasonal
patterns of high seawater temperatures (Willis et al., 2004).
Coles and Brown (2003) defined a general bleaching threshold for
reef-building corals as increases in seawater temperatures of 1-3[deg]C
above maximum annual mean temperatures at a given location. GBRMPA
(2010) defined a general ``trigger value'' for bleaching in reef-
building corals as increases in seawater temperatures of no more than
1[deg]C above maximum annual mean temperatures at a given location.
Because duration of exposure to elevated temperatures determines the
extent of bleaching, several methods have been developed to integrate
duration into bleaching thresholds, including the number of days,
weeks, or months of the elevated temperatures (Berkelmans, 2002; Eakin
et al., 2009). NOAA's Coral Reef Watch Program utilizes the Degree
Heating Week method (Glynn and D'Croz, 1990; Eakin et al. 2009), which
defines a general bleaching threshold for reef-building corals as
seawater temperatures of 1[deg]C above maximum monthly mean at a given
location for four consecutive weeks (https://coralreefwatch.noaa. gov/
).
These general thresholds were developed for coral reef communities
and ecosystems, rather than individual species. Many of these studies
are community or ecosystem-focused and do not account for species-
specific responses to changes in seawater temperatures, and instead are
focused on long-term climatic changes and large scale impacts (e.g.,
coral reef distribution, persistence).
In summary, temperature deviations from local averages prevent or
impede successful completion of all life history stages of the listed
coral species. Identifying temperatures at which the conservation value
of habitat for listed corals may be affected is inherently complex and
influenced by taxa, exposure duration, and other factors.
Carbonate ions (CO32-) are used by many
marine organisms, including corals, to build calcium carbonate
skeletons. For corals, the mineral form
[[Page 76269]]
of calcium carbonate in their skeletons is called ``aragonite.'' The
more carbonate ions there are dissolved in seawater, the easier it is
for corals to build their aragonite skeletons. The metric used to
express the relative availability of calcium and carbonate ions is the
aragonite saturation state ([Omega]arg). Thus, the lower the
[Omega]arg of seawater, the lower the abundance of carbonate
ions, and the more energy corals have to expend for skeletal
calcification, and vice versa (Cohen and Holcomb, 2009). At saturation
states between 1 and 20, marine organisms can create calcium carbonate
shells or skeletons using a physiological calcifying mechanism and the
expenditure of energy. The aragonite saturation state varies greatly
within and across coral reefs and through daily cycles with
temperature, salinity, pressure, and localized biological processes
such as photosynthesis, respiration, and calcification by marine
organisms (Gray et al., 2012; McMahon et al., 2013; Shaw et al.,
2012b).
Coral reefs form in an annually-averaged saturation state of 4.0 or
greater for optimal calcification, and an annually-averaged saturation
state below 3.3 will result in reduced calcification at rates
insufficient to maintain net positive reef accretion, resulting in loss
of reef structure (Guinotte et al., 2003; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007).
Guinotte et al. (2003) classified the range of aragonite saturation
states between 3.5-4.0 as ``adequate'' and < 3 as ``extremely
marginal.'' Thus, aragonite saturation state between 3 and 4 is likely
necessary for coral calcification. But, generally, seawater
[Omega]arg should be 3.5 or greater to enable maximum
calcification of reef-building corals, and average
[Omega]arg in most coral reef areas is currently in that
range (Guinotte et al., 2003). Further, (Kleypas et al., 1999)
concluded that a general threshold for [Omega]arg occurs
near 3.4, because only a few reefs occur where saturation is less than
this. Guan et al. (2015) found that the minimum aragonite saturation
observed where coral reefs currently occur is 2.82; however, it is not
known if those locations hosted live accreting corals. These general
characterizations and thresholds were identified for coral reef
communities and ecosystems, rather than individual species.
Ocean acidification is a term referring to changes in ocean
carbonate chemistry, including a drop in the pH of ocean waters, that
is occurring in response to the rise in the quantity of atmospheric
CO2 and the partial pressure of CO2
(pCO2) absorbed in oceanic waters (Caldeira and Wickett,
2003). As pCO2 rises, oceanic pH declines through the
formation of carbonic acid and subsequent reaction with water resulting
in an increase of free hydrogen ions. The free hydrogen ions react with
carbonate ions to produce bicarbonate, reducing the amount of carbonate
ions available, and thus reducing the aragonite saturation state. Ocean
acidification is one of the most significant threats to reef-building
corals (Brainard et al., 2011; Jokiel, 2015).
A variety of laboratory studies conducted on corals and coral reef
organisms (e.g., Langdon and Atkinson, 2005) consistently show declines
in the rate of coral calcification and growth with rising
pCO2, declining pH, and declining carbonate saturation
state. Laboratory experiments have also shown that skeletal deposition
and initiation of calcification in newly settled corals is reduced by
declining aragonite saturation state (Albright et al., 2008; Cohen et
al., 2009). Field studies from a variety of coral locations in the
Caribbean, Indo-Pacific, and Red Sea have shown a decline in linear
extension rates of coral skeleton under decreasing aragonite saturation
state (Bak et al., 2009; De'ath et al., 2009; Schneider and Erez, 2006;
Tanzil et al., 2009). Reduced calcification and slower growth will mean
slower recovery from breakage, whether natural (hurricanes and storms)
or human (breakage from vessel groundings, anchors, fishing gear,
etc.), or mortality from a variety of disturbances. Slower growth also
implies even higher rates of mortality for newly settled corals due to
the longer time it will take to reach a colony size that is no longer
vulnerable to overgrowth competition, sediment smothering, and
incidental predation. Reduced calcification and slower growth means
more time to reach reproductive size and reduces sexual and asexual
reproductive potential. Increased pCO2 coupled with
increased sea surface temperature can lead to even lower rates of
calcification, as found in the meta-analysis by Kornder et al. (2018).
In summary, aragonite saturation reductions prevent or impede
successful completion of all life history stages of the listed coral
species. Identifying the declining aragonite saturation state at which
the conservation value of habitat for listed corals may be affected is
inherently complex and influenced by taxa, exposure duration,
acclimatization to localized nutrient regimes, and other factors.
Nitrogen and phosphorous are two of the main nutrients that affect
the suitability of coral habitat (Fabricius et al., 2005; Fabricius,
2005). These two nutrients occur as different compounds in coral reef
habitats and are necessary in low levels for normal reef function.
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved inorganic phosphorus in the
forms of nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO43) are
particularly important for photosynthesis, with dissolved organic
nitrogen also providing an important source of nitrogen, and are the
dominant forms of nitrogen and phosphorous in coral reef waters.
Nutrients are a major component of land-based sources of pollution
(LBSP), one of the most important threats to reef-building corals
(Brainard et al., 2011). Excessive nutrients affect corals through two
main mechanisms: direct impacts on coral physiology such as reduced
fertilization and growth (Harrison and Ward, 2001; Ferrier-Pages et
al., 2000), and indirect effects through nutrient-stimulation of other
community components (e.g., macroalgae seaweeds, turfs/filamentous
algae, cyanobacteria, and filter feeders) that compete with corals for
space on the reef (79 FR 53851, September 10, 2014). As discussed
previously, the latter also affects the quality of recruitment
substrate. The physiological response a coral exhibits to an increase
in nutrients mainly depends on concentration and duration. A short
duration of a large increase in a nutrient may result in a severe
adverse response, just as a chronic, lower concentration might.
Most coral reefs occur where annual mean nutrient levels are low.
Kleypas et al. (1999) analyzed dissolved nutrient data from nearly
1,000 coral reef sites, finding mean values of 0.25 micromoles per
liter ([mu]mol/l) for NO3, and 0.13 [mu]mol/l for
PO4. Over 90 percent of the sites had mean NO3
values of <0.6 [mu]mol/l, and mean PO4 values of <0.2
[mu]mol/l (Kleypas et al., 1999). Several authors, including Bell and
Elmetri (1995) and Lapointe (1997) have proposed threshold values of
1.0 [mu]mol/l for NO3, and 0.1-0.2 [mu]mol/l for
PO4, above which NO3 and PO4 are
excessive (eutrophic). However, concentrations of dissolved nutrients
are poor indicators of coral reef status, and the concept of a simple
threshold concentration that indicates eutrophication has little
validity (McCook et al., 1999). One reason for that is because corals
are exposed to nutrients in a variety of forms, including dissolved
nitrogen (e.g., NO3), dissolved phosphorus (e.g.,
PO43), particulate nitrogen (PN), and particulate phosphate
(PP). Since the dissolved forms are assimilated rapidly by
phytoplankton, and the majority of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged
in
[[Page 76270]]
terrestrial runoff is in the particulate forms, PN and PP are the most
common bio-available forms of nutrients for corals on coastal zone
reefs (Cooper and Fabricius, 2007). Thus, De'ath and Fabricius (2008)
and GBRMPA (2010) provide general recommendations on maximum annual
mean values for PN and PP of 1.5 [mu]mol/l PN and 0.09 [mu]mol/l PP for
coastal zone reefs. These generalizations are for coral reef
communities and ecosystems, rather than individual species.
As noted previously, identifying nutrient concentrations at which
the conservation value of habitat for listed corals may be affected is
inherently complex and influenced by taxa, exposure duration, and
acclimatization to localized nutrient regimes, and other factors.
Water clarity or transparency is a key factor for marine ecosystems
and it is the best explanatory variable for a range of bioindicators of
reef health (Fabricius et al., 2012). Water clarity affects the light
availability for photosynthetic organisms and food availability for
filter feeders. Corals depend upon their symbiotic algae for nutrition
and thus depend on light availability for algal photosynthesis. Reduced
water clarity is determined by the presence of particles of sediment,
organic matter, and/or plankton in the water, and so is often
associated with elevated sedimentation and/or nutrients. Water clarity
can be measured in multiple ways, including percent of solar irradiance
at depth, Secchi depth (the depth in the water column at which a black
and white disk is no longer visible), and Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
(NTU) (measure of light scatter based on particles in the water
column). Reef-building corals naturally occur across a broad range of
water clarity levels from very turbid waters on enclosed reefs near
river mouths (Browne et al., 2012) to very clear waters on offshore
barrier reefs, and many intermediate habitats such as open coastal and
mid-shelf reefs (GBRMPA, 2010). Coral reefs appear to thrive in
extremely clear areas where Secchi depth is >= 15 m or light scatter is
< 1 NTU (De'ath and Fabricius, 2010). Typical levels of total suspended
solids (TSS) in reef environments are less than 10 mg/L (Rogers, 1990).
The minimum light level for reef development is about 6-8 percent of
surface irradiance (Fabricius et al., 2014).
For a particular coral colony, tolerated water clarity levels
likely depend on several factors, including species, life history
stage, spatial variability, and temporal variability. For example,
colonies of a species occurring on fringing reefs around high volcanic
islands with extensive groundwater inputs are likely to be better
acclimatized or adapted to higher turbidity than colonies of the same
species occurring on offshore barrier reefs or around atolls with very
little or no groundwater inputs. In some cases, corals occupy naturally
turbid habitats (Anthony and Larcombe, 2000; McClanahan and Obura,
1997; Te, 2001) where they may benefit from the reduced amount of UV
radiation to which they are exposed (Zepp et al., 2008). Reductions in
water clarity affect light availability for corals. As turbidity and
nutrients increase, thus decreasing water clarity, reef community
composition shifts from coral-dominated to macroalgae-dominated, and
ultimately to heterotrophic animals (Fabricius et al., 2012). Light
penetration is diminished by suspended abiotic and biotic particulate
matter (especially clay and silt-sized particles) and some dissolved
substances (Fabricius et al., 2014). The availability of light
decreases directly as a function of particle concentration and water
depth, but also depends on the nature of the suspended particles. Fine
clays and organic particles are easily suspended from the sea floor,
reducing light for prolonged periods, while undergoing cycles of
deposition and resuspension. Suspended fine particles also carry
nutrients and other contaminants (Fabricius et al., 2013). Increased
nutrient runoff into semi-enclosed seas accelerates phytoplankton
production to the point that it also increases turbidity and reduces
light penetration, and can also settle on colony surfaces (Fabricius,
2005). In areas of nutrient enrichment, light for benthic organisms can
be additionally severely reduced by dense stands of large fleshy
macroalgae shading adjacent corals (Fabricius, 2005).
The literature provides several recommendations on maximum
turbidity levels for coral reefs (i.e., levels that managers should
strive to stay under). GBRMPA (2010) recommends minimum mean annual
water clarity, or ``trigger values'', in Secchi distances for the GBR
depending on habitat type: For enclosed coastal reefs, 1.0-1.5 m; for
open coastal reefs and mid-shelf reefs, 10 m; and for offshore reefs,
17 m. De'ath and Fabricius (2008) recommend a minimum mean annual water
clarity trigger value in Secchi distance averaged across all GBR
habitats of 10 m. Bell and Elmetri (1995) recommend a maximum value of
3.3 mg/L TSS across all GBR habitats. Thomas et al. (2003) recommend a
maximum value of 10 mg/L averaged across all Papua New Guinea coral
reef habitats. Larcombe et al. (2001) recommend a maximum value of 40
mg/L TSS for GBR ``marginal reefs'', i.e., reefs close to shore with
high natural turbidity levels. Guan et al. (2015) recommend a minimum
light intensity ([mu]mol photons second/m2) of 450 [mu]mol photons
second/m2 globally for coral reefs. The previously described
generalizations are for coral reef communities and ecosystems, rather
than individual species.
A coral's response to a reduction in water clarity is dependent on
intensity and duration. For example, corals exhibited partial mortality
when exposed to 476 mg/L TSS (Bengtsson et al., 1996) for 96 hours, but
had total mortality when exposed to 1000 mg/L TSS for 65 hours
(Thompson and Bright, 1980). Depending on the duration of exposure,
most coral species exhibited sublethal effects when exposed to
turbidity levels between 7 and 40 NTU (Erftemeijer et al., 2012). The
most tolerant coral species exhibited decreased growth rates when
exposed to 165 mg/L TSS for 10 days (Rice and Hunter, 1992). Turbidity
reduces water clarity and so reduces the maximum depth at which corals
can live, making deeper habitat unsuitable (Fabricius, 2005). Existing
data suggest that coral reproduction and settlement are more highly
sensitive to changes in water clarity than adult survival, and these
functions are dependent on clear water. Suspended particulate matter
reduces fertilization and sperm function (Ricardo et al., 2015), and
strongly inhibits larvae survival, settlement, recruitment, and
juvenile survival (Fabricius, 2005).
In summary, water clarity deviations from local averages prevent or
impede successful completion of all life history stages of the listed
coral species. Identifying turbidity levels at which the conservation
value of habitat for listed corals may be affected is inherently
complex and influenced by taxa, exposure duration, and acclimatization
to localized nutrient regimes, and other factors.
The water column may include levels of anthropogenically-introduced
chemical contaminants that prevent or impede successful completion of
all life history stages of the listed coral species. For the purposes
of this rule, ``contaminants'' is a collective term to describe a suite
of anthropogenically-introduced chemical substances in water or
sediments that may adversely affect corals. The study of the effects of
contaminants on corals is a relatively new field and information on
sources and ecotoxicology is incomplete. The
[[Page 76271]]
major groups of contaminants that have been studied for effects to
corals include heavy metals (also called trace metals), pesticides, and
hydrocarbons. Other organic contaminants, such as chemicals in personal
care products, polychlorinated biphenyl, and surfactants, have also
been studied. Contaminants may be delivered to coral reefs via point or
non-point sources. Specifically, contaminants enter the marine
environment through wastewater discharge, shipping, industrial
activities, and agricultural and urban runoff. These contaminants can
cause negative effects to coral reproduction, development, growth,
photosynthesis, and survival.
Heavy metals (e.g., copper, cadmium, manganese, nickel, cobalt,
lead, zinc, and iron) can be toxic at concentrations above naturally-
occurring levels. Heavy metals are persistent in the environment and
can bioaccumulate. Metals are adsorbed to sediment particles, which can
result in their long distance transport away from sources of pollution.
Corals incorporate metals in their skeleton and accumulate them in
their soft tissue (Al-Rousan et al., 2012; Barakat et al., 2015).
Although heavy metals can occur in the marine environment from natural
processes, in nearshore waters they are mostly a result of
anthropogenic sources (e.g., wastewater, antifouling and anticorrosive
paints from marine vessels and structures, land filling and dredging
for coastal expansion, maritime activities, inorganic and organic
pollutants, crude oil pollution, shipping processes, industrial
discharge, agricultural activities), and are found near cities, ports,
and industrial developments.
The effects of copper on corals include physiological impairment,
impaired photosynthesis, bleaching, reduced growth, and DNA damage
(Bielmyer et al., 2010; Schwarz et al., 2013). Effects to
fertilization, larval development, larval swimming behavior,
metamorphosis, and larval survival have also been documented (Kwok and
Ang, 2013; Negri and Hoogenboom, 2011; Puisay et al., 2015; Reichelt-
Brushett and Hudspith, 2016; Rumbold and Snedaker, 1997). Toxicity of
copper was found to be higher when temperatures are elevated (Negri and
Hoogenboom, 2011). Nickel and cobalt can also have negative effects on
corals, such as reduced growth and photosynthetic rates (Biscere et
al., 2015), and reduced fertilization success (Reichelt-Brushett and
Hudspith, 2016). Chronic exposure of corals to higher levels of iron
may significantly reduce growth rates Ferrier-Pages et al. (2001).
Further, iron chloride has been found to cause oxidative DNA damage to
coral larvae (Vijayavel et al., 2012).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found in fossil fuels
such as oil and coal and can be produced by the incomplete combustion
of organic matter. PAHs disperse through non-point sources such as road
run-off, sewage, and deposition of particulate air pollution. PAHs can
also disperse from point sources such as oil spills and industrial
sites. Studies have found effects of oil pollution on corals include
growth impairments, mucus production, and decreased reproduction,
especially at increased temperature (Kegler et al., 2015). Hydrocarbons
have also been found to affect early life stages of corals. Oil-
contaminated seawater reduced settlement of Orbicella faveolata and of
Agaricia humilis and was more severe than any direct or latent effects
on survival (Hartmann et al., 2015). Natural gas (water accommodated
fraction) exposure resulted in abortion of larvae during early
embryogenesis and early release of larvae during late embryogenesis,
with higher concentrations of natural gas yielding higher adverse
effects (Villanueva et al., 2011). Oil, dispersant, and a combination
of oil and dispersant on significantly decreased settlement and
survival of Porites astreoides and O. faveolata larvae (Goodbody-
Gringley et al., 2013).
Anthracene (a PAH used in dyes, wood preservatives, insecticides,
and coating materials) exposure to apparently healthy and diseased
(Caribbean yellow band disease) fragments of O. faveolata reduced
activity of enzymes important for protection against environmental
stressors in the diseased colonies (Montilla et al., 2016). The results
indicated that diseased tissues might be more vulnerable to the
exposure to PAHs such as anthracene than apparently healthy corals. PAH
concentrations similar to those present after an oil spill inhibited
metamorphosis of Acropora tenuis larvae, and sensitivity increased when
larvae were co-exposed to PAHs and ``shallow reef'' UV light levels
(Negri et al., 2016).
Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, and antifoulants used
on vessels and other marine structures. Pesticides can affect non-
target marine organisms like corals and their zooxanthellae. Diuron, an
herbicide, decreased photosynthesis isolated zooxanthellae (Shaw et
al., 2012b). Irgarol, an additive in copper-based antifouling paints,
significantly reduced settlement in Porites hawaiiensis (Knutson et
al., 2012). Porites astreoides larvae exposed to two major mosquito
pesticide ingredients, naled and permethrin, for 18-24 hours showed
differential responses. Concentrations of 2.96 [micro]g/L or greater of
naled significantly reduced larval survivorship. However, reduced
larval survivorship was not detected in exposure of up to 6.0 [micro]g/
L of permethrin. Larval settlement, post-settlement survival, and
zooxanthellae density were not impacted by any treatment (Ross et al.,
2015).
Benzophenone-2 (BP-2) is a chemical additive to personal care
products (e.g., shampoo, body lotions, soap, detergents), product
coatings (oil-based paints, polyurethanes), acrylic adhesives, and
plastics that protects against damage from ultraviolet light. It is
released into the ocean through municipal and boat/ship wastewater
discharges, landfill leachates, residential septic fields, and
unmanaged cesspits. BP-2 is a known endocrine disruptor and a DNA
mutagen, and its effects are worse in the light. It caused deformation
of Stylophora pistillata larvae changing them from a motile planktonic
state to a deformed sessile condition at low concentrations. It also
caused increasing larval bleaching with increasing concentration (Downs
et al., 2014). Benzophenone-3 (BP-3; oxybenzone) is an ingredient in
sunscreen and personal care products (e.g., hair cleaning and styling
products, cosmetics, insect repellent, soaps) that protects against
damage from ultraviolet light. It enters the marine environment through
swimmers and municipal, residential, and boat/ship wastewater
discharges and can cause DNA mutations. Oxybenzone is a skeletal
endocrine disruptor, and it caused larvae of S. pistillata to encase
themselves in their own skeleton. Exposure to oxybenzone transformed S.
pistillata larvae from a motile state to a deformed, sessile condition.
Larvae exhibited an increasing rate of coral bleaching in response to
increasing concentrations of oxybenzone (Downs et al., 2016).
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are environmentally stable,
persistent organic pollutants that have been used as heat exchange
fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors, and as additives in
paint, carbonless copy paper, and plastics. They can be transported
globally through the atmosphere, water, and food web. A study of the
effects of the PCB Aroclor 1254 on the scleractinian coral S.
pistillata found no effects on coral survival, photosynthesis, or
growth; however, the exposure concentration
[[Page 76272]]
and duration may alter the expression of certain genes involved in
important cellular functions (Chen et al., 2012).
Surfactants are used as detergents and soaps, wetting agents,
emulsifiers, foaming agents, and dispersants. Linear alkylbenzene
sulfonate (LAS) is one of the most common surfactants in use.
Biodegradation of surfactants can occur within a few hours to several
days, but significant proportions of surfactants attach to suspended
solids and remain in the environment. This sorption of surfactants onto
suspended solids depends on environmental factors such as temperature,
salinity, or pH. Exposure of Pocillopora verrucosa to LAS resulted in
tissue loss on fragments. The combined effects of LAS exposure with
increased temperature (+3[deg]C to 31[deg]C) resulted in greater tissue
loss than LAS exposure alone (Kegler et al., 2015).
In summary, there are multiple chemical contaminants that prevent
or impede successful completion of all life history stages of the
listed coral species. Identifying contaminant levels at which the
conservation value of habitat for listed corals may be affected is
inherently complex and influenced by taxa, exposure duration, and other
factors.
As described previously, the best-available information shows coral
reefs form on solid substrate but only within a narrow range of water
column conditions that on average allow the deposition rates of corals
to exceed the rates of physical, chemical, and biological erosion
(i.e., conducive conditions, Brainard et al., 2005). However, as with
all ecosystems, water column conditions are dynamic and vary over space
and time. Therefore, we also describe environmental conditions in which
coral reefs currently exist globally, thus indicating the conditions
that may be tolerated by corals and allow at least for survival. To the
extent tolerance conditions deviate in duration and intensity from
conducive conditions, they may not support coral reproduction and
recruitment, and reef growth, and thus would impair recovery of the
species. Further, annually and spatially averaged-tolerance ranges
provide the limits of the environmental conditions in which coral reefs
exist globally (Guan et al., 2015), but these conditions do not
necessarily represent the conditions that may be tolerated by
individual coral species. Individual species may or may not be able to
withstand conditions within or exceeding the globally-averaged
tolerance ranges for coral reefs, depending on the individual species'
biology, local average conditions to which the species are
acclimatized, and intensity and duration of exposure to adverse
conditions. In other words, changes in the water column parameters
discussed previously that exceed the tolerance ranges may induce
adverse effects in a particular species. Thus, the concept of
individual species' tolerance limits is a different aspect of water
quality conditions compared to conditions that are conducive for
formation and growth of reef structures.
These values presented in the previous summaries constitute the
best available information at the time of this rulemaking. It is
possible that future scientific research will identify species-specific
values for some of these parameters that become more applicable to the
seven listed coral species, though it is also possible that future
species-specific research will document that conducive or tolerance
ranges for the seven corals fall within these ranges. Because the ESA
requires us to use the best scientific information available in
conducting consultations under section 7, we will incorporate any such
new scientific information into consultations when evaluating potential
impacts to the critical habitat.
Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection
Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species
may be designated as critical habitat only if they contain essential
features that may require special management considerations or
protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)(II). Special management
considerations or protection are any methods or procedures useful in
protecting physical or biological features for the conservation of
listed species (50 CFR 424.02).
The proposed essential feature is particularly susceptible to
impacts from human activity because of the relatively shallow water
depth ranges of the seven listed corals (less than 40 m). The proximity
of this habitat to coastal areas subject this feature to impacts from
multiple activities, including, but not limited to, coastal and in-
water construction, dredging and disposal activities, beach
nourishment, stormwater run-off, wastewater and sewage outflow
discharges, point and non-point source pollutant discharges, and
fishery management. Further, the global oceans are being impacted by
climate change from greenhouse gas emissions, particularly the tropical
oceans in which the Indo-Pacific corals occur (van Hooidonk et al.,
2014). The impacts from these activities, combined with those from
natural factors (e.g., major storm events), significantly affect
habitat for all life stages for these threatened corals. We conclude
that the essential feature is currently and will likely continue to be
negatively impacted by some or all of these factors.
Greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., fossil fuel combustion) lead to
global climate change and ocean acidification. These activities
adversely affect the essential feature by increasing sea surface
temperature and decreasing the aragonite saturation state. Coastal and
in-water construction, channel dredging, and beach nourishment
activities can directly remove the essential feature by dredging it or
by depositing sediments on it, making it unavailable for settlement and
recruitment of coral larvae or fragments. These same activities can
impact the essential feature by creating turbidity during operations.
Stormwater run-off, wastewater and sewage outflow discharges, and point
and non-point source contaminant discharges can adversely impact the
essential feature by allowing nutrients and sediments, as well as
contaminants, from point and non-point sources, including sewage,
stormwater and agricultural runoff, river discharge, and groundwater,
to alter the natural levels in the water column. The same activities
can also adversely affect the essential feature by increasing the
growth rates of macroalgae, allowing them to preempt available
recruitment habitat. Fishery management can adversely affect the
essential feature if it allows for the reduction in the number of
herbivorous fishes available to control the growth of macroalgae on the
substrate.
Given these ongoing threats throughout the corals' habitat, we find
that the essential feature may require special management
considerations.
Specific Areas Containing the Essential Features Within the
Geographical Areas Occupied by the Species
Our regulations state that each critical habitat area will be shown
on a map, with more-detailed information discussed in the preamble of
the rulemaking documents published in the Federal Register defined by
specific limits using reference points and lines on standard
topographic maps of the area, and referencing each area by the State,
county, or other local governmental unit in which it is located (50 CFR
424.12(c)). Our regulations also state that when several habitats, each
satisfying requirements for designation as critical habitat, are
located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be
designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)).
[[Page 76273]]
We identified 19 units within the geographical area occupied by the
seven listed Indo-Pacific species confirmed in U.S. waters, at the time
of listing, that contain the essential feature (Table 1): Four in
American Samoa (Tutuila and Offshore Banks, Ofu and Olosega, Ta'u, and
Rose Atoll); one in Guam (Guam and Offshore Banks); eight in CNMI
(Rota, Aguijian, Tinian and Tatsumi Reef, Saipan and Garapan Bank,
Farallon de Medinilla, Anatahan, Pagan, and Maug Islands and Supply
Reef); and six in PRIA (Howland Island, Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef,
Johnston Atoll, Wake Atoll, and Jarvis Island).
Within each of these 19 units, we delineated more specific areas
that contain the essential feature using a 3-step process: (1) We
reviewed available information on substrate and water quality
parameters to determine where the essential feature occurs; (2) we
established upper and lower depth limits for these areas depending on
the species present; and (3) within the depth limits, we identified
areas that may have the essential feature but are not necessary for the
conservation of the listed species because they are artificial
substrates or natural substrates that are consistently disturbed, and
therefore do not qualify as critical habitat.
For step 1, determining specific areas that contain the essential
feature, we reviewed available substrate and water quality data for
each unit. For substrate, we used data and maps from two benthic
habitat mapping programs that collect benthic data for coral reef
ecosystems throughout the United States (these programs are also
available to the public on their websites): (1) For habitat <20 m
depth, the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science's (NCCOS; https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/) provides data and maps (except for some of
the PRIA); and (2) for habitat >20 m depth, the Pacific Islands Benthic
Habitat Mapping Center (PIBHMC; https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pibhmc/cms/) provides data and maps. These two complementary programs provide
nearly complete, large-scale coverage of reef-building coral substrate
in the U.S. Pacific Islands, except for some of the PRIA areas which
are not included in the NCCOS database. For substrate and water quality
information, we also used coral reef monitoring and status reports from
the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/pacific-islands#science) for the Mariana
Islands (Brainard et al., 2012; except for Farallon de Medinilla (FDM))
and American Samoa (Brainard et al., 2008). For the PRIA, we used
Miller et al. (2008). In contrast to substrate, data for water quality
parameters are limited to a few of the parameters over a small overall
portion of reef-building coral habitat within the area under
consideration for critical habitat.
We applied step 2, establishing upper and lower depth limits for
these areas, by using depth distribution information for the listed
coral species that occur in each unit to delineate upper and lower
depth limits for each unit. Because at least some, if not all, listed
corals in each unit occur in shallow habitats (e.g., reef flats), the
upper depth limit for all units is mean low water, referred to here as
zero (0) m depth. The lower depth limit for each unit is based on the
deepest observed record of any listed species in that unit. As
previously described in more detail in the Background section, based on
the best currently available information, we consider the rangewide
depth distributions of the seven listed species as follows: A.
globiceps, 0 to 20 m; A. jacquelineae, 10 to 35 m; A. retusa, 0 to 10
m; A. speciosa, 12 to 40 m; E. paradivisa, 2 to 25; I. crateriformis, 0
to 12 m; and S. aculeata, 3 to 40 m. We used depth distributions for
all listed Indo-Pacific species within U.S. waters combined as a
comprehensive approach to establish a lower limit because most listed
species have overlapping depth distributions, and depth distributions
of these species are still not well known for many of the critical
habitat units.
We next applied step 3 for each unit by identifying areas that may
contain the essential feature, but are not necessary for the
conservation of the listed species. There are two types of areas that
may contain hard consolidated substrate and suitable water quality
parameters, but are not considered necessary for the conservation of
the species, and none, one, or both may occur in each unit: (1)
artificial substrates; and (2) ``managed areas.'' Artificial substrates
include any human-made structure, regardless of age or level of active
management. Examples include, but are not limited to, fixed and
floating structures, such as: Jetties, groins, breakwaters, fixed or
floating AToNs, seawalls, wharves, boat ramps, fishpond walls, pipes,
wrecks, mooring balls, docks, aquaculture cages, and other artificial
substrates. Managed areas are areas where the substrate has been
disturbed by management and will continue to be periodically disturbed
by such management. Examples include, but are not limited to, dredged
navigation channels, shipping basins, vessel berths, and AToN chain
scour areas around anchor blocks. As noted previously, protecting
artificial substrates and managed areas would not facilitate meeting
our conservation goal of maintaining functional natural reef ecosystems
on which the listed species depend. They do not provide stable natural
environments for coral growth and settlement and therefore are not
necessary for the conservation of the species.
NMFS is aware that dredging may result in sedimentation impacts
beyond the actual dredge channel. To the extent that these impacts are
persistent, are expected to recur whenever the channel is dredged and
are of such a level that the areas in question have already been made
unsuitable for coral, then NMFS expects that the federal action agency
can assess and identify such areas during their pre-dredging planning
and provide their rationale and information supporting this conclusion.
To the extent that the federal action agency does so, NMFS proposes
that these persistently impacted areas be considered part of the
managed areas and excluded from critical habitat.
The application of the 3-step process to each of the 19 specific
areas is described in more detail in the Draft Information Report. The
resulting delineations of the specific areas are described in Appendix
A of the report, and 17 of the 19 are described and shown in the maps
at the end of this rule. The entireties of the other two specific areas
(Wake and FDM) were determined to be ineligible by the 4(a)(3) analyses
summarized below, and described and shown in the Draft Information
Report (NMFS, 2019). These are the 19 specific areas to which the ESA
section 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) analyses were applied. The essential
feature is unevenly distributed throughout these 19 specific areas.
Within these areas there exists a mosaic of habitats at relatively
small spatial scales, some of which naturally contain the essential
feature and some that do not. Further, within these large areas,
specific managed areas as described previously also exist. If a
location within one of these areas does not meet the definition of
critical habitat (such as an area of soft substrate or a continuously
managed area), it is not included in the designations. Due to the
spatial scale at which the essential feature exists interspersed with
these other habitats and disturbed areas, and the fact that the precise
locations of the essential feature change over time (e.g., seasonally,
in response to storms, etc.), we are not able to more finely delineate
the essential feature.
[[Page 76274]]
Unoccupied Critical Habitat Areas
We have not identified any unoccupied areas for designation of
critical habitat. ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical habitat to
include specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing if the areas are determined by the
Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species.
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) specify that we will identify, at a
scale determined to be appropriate, specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species that are essential for its
conservation, considering the life history, status, and conservation
needs of the species based on the best available scientific data.
The threats to these seven corals include ocean warming, ocean
acidification, and other threats that are primarily caused by global
climate change (Brainard et al., 2011). We issued guidance in June 2016
on the treatment of climate change uncertainty in ESA decisions, which
addresses critical habitat specifically (NMFS 2016). The guidance
states that, when designating critical habitat, NMFS will consider
proactive designation of unoccupied habitat as critical habitat when
there is adequate data to support a reasonable inference that the
habitat is essential for the conservation of the species because of the
function(s) it is likely to serve as climate changes.
All seven of these species occur in the Coral Triangle, an area
predicted to have rapid and severe impacts from climate change. As a
response to changing conditions, these species may shift into
previously unoccupied habitats as they become more suitable and as
other parts of their range become less suitable in the future. However,
the best information available currently does not support a reasonable
inference that listed Indo-Pacific corals may expand into unoccupied
areas within U.S. waters in the future due to changing climate
conditions. In addition, coral reef areas within U.S. jurisdiction
provide no more than about 2 percent of each listed species' total
range. Without further information, we cannot support the notion that
such a small area of unoccupied habitat at the range margin is
essential to the conservation of the species.
Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) (Military Lands)
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA prohibits designating as critical
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are
subject to an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP)
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary of Commerce determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.
Two INRMPs are applicable to proposed coral critical habitat: (1)
The Navy's Joint Region Marianas INRMP (JRM INRMP), finalized and
signed in 2019 (DoN, 2019); and (2) the Air Force's INRMP for Wake
Island Air Field, Wake Atoll, Kokee Air Force Station, Kauai, Hawaii,
and Mt. Kaala Air Force Station, Oahu, Hawaii (Wake INRMP), finalized
and signed in 2017 (USAF, 2017). The JRM INRMP is a composite of
management plans for many distinct DoD controlled areas in the Mariana
Islands, including in Guam and CNMI (DoN, 2019).
Summaries of the analyses of whether these two INRMPs are likely to
benefit the ESA-listed corals or their habitat in Guam and CNMI (JRM
INRMP) and Wake (Wake INRMP) are provided below, following the four
considerations outlined in the 2016 guidance for the 4(a)(3) and
4(b)(2) portions of critical habitat designations (81 FR 7413; February
11, 2016). These four considerations are: (1) The extent of the area
and essential feature present in the area; (2) The type and frequency
of use of the area by the listed species; (3) The relevant elements of
the INRMP in terms of management objectives, activities covered, and
best management practices, and the certainty that the relevant elements
will be implemented; and (4) The degree to which the relevant elements
of the INRMP will protect the habitat (essential feature) from the
types of effects that would be addressed through a destruction-or-
adverse- modification analysis.
JRM INRMP--Guam
In Guam, the JRM INRMP encompasses three marine areas that overlap
with areas proposed for coral critical habitat (hereafter ``INRMP
marine areas''): (1) Naval Base Guam--Main Base (NBG Main Base)
Submerged Lands; (2) Naval Base Guam--Telecommunications Site (NBG TS)
Submerged Lands; and (3) Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB) Submerged
Lands. A summary of the analyses of whether the INRMP is likely to
benefit the habitat of ESA-listed corals in each of these three INRMP
marine areas is provided below, summarized from the full analyses in
the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019).
With regard to the extent of the area and essential feature
present: (1) The NBG Main Base Submerged Lands cover approximately
30,000 acres along the coastline from Orote Peninsula to Asan
(described in the JRM INRMP, Section 5.3, DoN, 2019); (2) the NBG TS
Submerged Lands cover approximately 19,500 acres on the northwestern
side of Guam (described in the JRM INRMP, Section 8.3, DoN, 2019); and
(3) AAFB Submerged Lands cover approximately 26,500 acres of Submerged
Lands on the northern side of Guam (described in the JRM INRMP, Section
9.3, DoN, 2019). Each of the three INRMP marine areas includes
extensive potential proposed critical habitat, as shown in Fig. 21 in
the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019). Most or all of the potential
proposed critical habitat within the three INRMP marine areas includes
both the substrate and water quality components of the essential
feature of coral critical habitat (i.e., characteristics of substrate
and water quality support coral life history, including reproduction,
recruitment, growth, and maturation), based on information provided
previously in the Guam section of the Draft Information Report (NMFS,
2019), the Guam chapter of PIFSC's coral reef monitoring report for the
Mariana archipelago (Brainard et al., 2012), and the INRMP (DoN, 2019).
With regard to use of the area by the listed species, the listed
coral Acropora globiceps occurs within each of the three INRMP marine
areas. Two other listed coral species, Acropora retusa and Seriatopora
aculeata, have been recorded on Guam at one or two sites, and thus may
also occur in one or more of the three INRMP marine areas (DoN, 2019).
With regard to the relevant elements of the INRMP, and certainty
that the relevant elements will be implemented, the two parts of this
step are addressed separately below. The relevant elements of the JRM
INRMP for each INRMP marine area include: (1) For the NBG Main Base
Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement plan
(Section 5.4.2.1), consisting of eight specific actions in three
categories: (1) Monitoring and adaptive management (3 actions), (2)
collaboration with local partners (3 actions), and (3) reduction of
vessel impacts (2 actions); (2) for NBG TS Submerged Lands, the INRMP
includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement plan (Section 8.4.2.1), consisting
of a similar set of eight specific actions as for NBG Main Base; and
(3) for AAFB Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes a Coral Habitat
Enhancement plan (Section 9.4.2.1), consisting of a similar set of
seven specific actions as for NBG Main Base, except that there is less
focus on
[[Page 76275]]
reduction in vessel impacts because of the much lower vessel traffic
there.
NMFS concludes that the Navy will implement the relevant elements
of the JRM INRMP for the previously described three INRMP marine areas
for three reasons:
(1) Clear and Recent Documentation--the 2019 JRM INRMP includes
Coral Habitat Enhancement plans for INRMP marine areas in Guam, with
clear strategies and actions that address the habitat conservation
needs of ESA-listed corals within these areas. The JRM INRMP's Appendix
D also includes annual reports describing how coral conservation
efforts have been implemented in recent years. These new coral habitat
conservation plans, as well as reports from recent years, clearly
articulate how Navy is conserving coral habitat within the INRMP marine
areas in Guam, and how it will do so in the future.
(2) Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts for Listed Corals--the Navy
has already implemented coral habitat conservation projects that are
beneficial to ESA-listed corals within some INRMP marine areas in Guam,
as described in the INRMP annual reports in the JRM INRMP's Appendix D
(DoN, 2019a), and listed in the Draft Information Report. Many of these
projects have been ongoing for several years and are proactive, in that
they were not required of the Navy by the ESA. For example, in Fiscal
Year 2018 (Oct-18 to Sep-19, FY18), the following coral habitat
conservation projects were carried out by the Navy within these waters:
(1) 20 mooring buoys were installed within NBG Main Base submerged
waters to prevent anchoring on its coral reefs; (2) monitoring of the
impacts of coral bleaching and crown of thorns starfish on reef-
building corals including listed species; (3) coral surveys of Apra
Harbor including listed species; (4) translocation of corals from a
dredging area within Apra Harbor (no listed corals); (5) water quality
monitoring; and (6) environmental education and outreach (DoN, 2019a,
Appendix D, FY18 Annual Report). Many of these projects have been
ongoing for several years and are proactive, in that they were not
required of the Navy by the ESA.
(3) History of Strong Conservation Work--the Navy has a long
history of carrying out successful marine habitat conservation work on
Guam, and often takes the initiative on conservation efforts whether
requested by NMFS or FWS or not. For example, many of the coral habitat
conservation projects in the 2019 JRM INRMP had already been started by
the Navy before corals were listed in 2014, and were being done to
improve conservation of marine resources on the island, regardless of
whether they were required by Federal statute or not.
The coral habitat enhancement elements of the JRM INRMP described
previously are expected to substantially reduce the types of effects
within the three INRMP marine areas in Guam that would be addressed
through the destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. Navy would
accomplish this primarily by using the results of its own monitoring
program to develop and implement management actions to enhance coral
habitat and measures to minimize the impacts of Navy's (and other DoD
branches') actions in Guam on coral habitat within the INRMP marine
areas, thereby benefiting listed corals and their habitat.
JRM INRMP--CNMI
In CNMI, the JRM INRMP encompasses two marine areas that overlap
with areas considered for coral critical habitat: (1) The Tinian Marine
Lease Area (Tinian MLA) Submerged Lands; and (2) the Farallon de
Medinilla (FDM) Submerged Lands (DoN, 2019). A summary of the analyses
of whether the INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of ESA-listed
corals in each of these two INRMP marine areas is provided below,
summarized from the full analyses in the Draft Information Report
(NMFS, 2019).
With regard to the extent of the area and essential feature
present: (1) The Tinian MLA Submerged Lands cover approximately 47,500
acres surrounding the northern portion of Tinian (described in the JRM
INRMP, Section 11.3, DoN, 2019); (2) the FDM Submerged Lands consists
of approximately 25,000 acres surrounding FDM (described in the JRM
INRMP, Section 12.3, DoN, 2019). Most or all of the potential proposed
critical habitat within the two INRMP marine areas includes both the
substrate and water quality components of the essential feature of
coral critical habitat (i.e., characteristics of substrate and water
quality support coral life history, including reproduction,
recruitment, growth, and maturation), based on information provided in
the Tinian and FDM sections of the Draft Information Report (NMFS,
2019), the Tinian and FDM chapters of PIFSC's coral reef monitoring
report for the Mariana archipelago (Brainard et al. 2012), and the
INRMP (DoN, 2019).
With regard to use of the area by the listed species, the listed
coral Acropora globiceps is distributed widely throughout the Tinian
MLA Submerged Lands, and also occurs in the FDM Submerged Lands. One
other listed coral species, Acropora retusa, has been recorded in the
Tinian MLA Submerged Lands, but not in the FDM Submerged Lands. No
other listed corals have been reported from either INRMP marine area
(DoN, 2019; NMFS, 2019).
With regard to the relevant elements of the INRMP, and certainty
that the relevant elements will be implemented, the two parts of this
step are addressed separately below. The relevant elements of the JRM
INRMP for each INRMP marine area include: (1) For the Tinian MLA
Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement plan,
consisting three specific actions to enhance coral habitat by
monitoring health and acute impacts (Section 11.4.2.1; DoN, 2019); and
(2) for the FDM Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes marine habitat
management actions, consisting of surveys and mapping of ESA-listed
corals, coral reef, and other marine habitats within the area (Section
12.4.2; DoN, 2019). The INRMP also includes assessment of ESA-listed
corals, as required by the 2015 biological opinion on the Navy's
Mariana Islands Testing and Training program (Section 12.4.2.2; DoN,
2019).
NMFS concludes that the Navy will implement these relevant elements
of the JRM INRMP for three reasons:
(1) Clear and Recent Documentation--the 2019 JRM INRMP includes
Coral Habitat Enhancement plans for INRMP marine areas in CNMI (Tinian
MLA, FDM Submerged Lands), with clear strategies and actions that
address the habitat conservation needs of ESA-listed corals within
these areas. The JRM INRMP's Appendix D also includes annual reports
describing how coral conservation efforts have been implemented in
recent years in INRMP marine areas in CNMI. These new coral habitat
conservation plans, as well as reports from recent years, clearly
articulate how Navy is conserving coral habitat within the INRMP marine
areas in CNMI, and how it will do so in the future.
(2) Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts for Listed Corals--the Navy
has already implemented coral projects that have the potential to
benefit the habitat of ESA-listed corals within INRMP marina areas in
CNMI (Tinian MLA, FDM Submerged Lands). For example, coral species
presence and abundance surveys were conducted within the Tinian MLA in
2013 (DoN, 2014) and 2017 (DoN, 2017), and around FDM in 2012 (Smith
and Marx, 2016) and 2017 (Carilli et al., 2018). These surveys were not
required by the ESA, and have the potential to benefit the habitat of
ESA-
[[Page 76276]]
listed corals by providing information needed to better protect these
areas in the future.
(3) History of Strong Conservation Work--the Navy has a long
history of carrying out successful marine habitat conservation work in
the Mariana Islands, and often takes the initiative on conservation
efforts whether requested by NMFS or FWS or not. For example, many of
the coral habitat conservation projects in the 2019 JRM INRMP had
already been started by the Navy before corals were listed in 2014, and
were being done to improve conservation of marine resources on the
island, regardless of whether they were required by Federal statute or
not. While the great majority of these projects have been implemented
in Guam rather than CNMI, the JRM INRMP includes many plans for CNMI
(as noted previously), and the same Navy office (Navy Facilities
Marianas) is responsible for carrying out such work in both Guam and
CNMI.
The coral habitat enhancement elements of the JRM INRMP described
previously are expected to substantially reduce the types of effects
within the two INRMP marine areas in CNMI that would be addressed
through the destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. Navy would
accomplish this primarily by using the results of its own monitoring
program to develop and implement management measures to minimize the
impacts of Navy's (and other DoD branches') actions in CNMI on coral
habitat within the INRMP marine areas, thereby benefiting listed corals
and their habitat.
Wake INRMP
On Wake Atoll, the Wake INRMP (USAF, 2017) encompasses the entire
area considered for coral critical habitat, as described and shown in
the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019). A summary of the analyses of
whether the INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of ESA-listed corals
in this INRMP marine area is provided below, summarized from the full
analyses in the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019).
With regard to the extent of the area and essential feature
present, the Wake INRMP marine area includes nearly 500,000 acres of
Submerged Lands and waters within the lagoon and surrounding the atoll
out to 12 nautical miles from the mean low water line (USAF 2017), and
thus includes all reef-building corals and coral reefs associated with
the atoll. Most or all of the potential proposed critical habitat
within the INRMP marine area includes both the substrate and water
quality components of the essential feature of coral critical habitat
(i.e., characteristics of substrate and water quality support coral
life history, including reproduction, recruitment, growth, and
maturation), based on information provided in the Wake section of the
Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019) and the INRMP (USAF, 2017).
With regard to use of the area by the listed species, the USFWS
coral survey at Wake Atoll in August 2016 recorded colonies of both
Acropora globiceps and A. retusa on the south side of Wake in the
vicinity of the three sites (USFWS, 2017; USAF, 2017). Thus, we assume
that at least these two listed species occur throughout much of this
INRMP marine area. No other listed corals have been reported from Wake
(USAF, 2017; NMFS, 2019).
With regard to the relevant elements of the INRMP, and certainty
that the relevant elements will be implemented, the two parts of this
step are addressed separately below. The relevant element of the Wake
INRMP is the coral conservation component that was added to the INMRP
in 2017 (Appendix S, Coral Conservation Actions at Wake Atoll; USAF,
2017), which is made up of four groups of actions, each of which
include multiple projects: Water quality improvements (six projects),
education and outreach (two projects), fisheries management (four
projects), and physical DoD presence on Wake Atoll (three projects;
USAF, 2017). The actions and projects are described in detail in the
Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019).
NMFS concludes that the Air Force will implement these relevant
elements of the Wake INRMP for three reasons:
(1) Clear and Recent Documentation--the Wake INRMP includes a coral
conservation plan (Appendix S) with a 4-pronged strategy (water quality
improvement, outreach and education for Wake-based staff, fisheries
management, and physical DoD presence on Wake Atoll i.e., restriction
of access and overall natural resource management) that comprehensively
addresses the conservation needs of ESA-listed corals on Wake Atoll.
This new official coral conservation plan clearly articulates how USAF
is conserving corals on Wake, and how it will do so in the future.
(2) Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts for Listed Corals: USAF has
already implemented projects on Wake for each of its 4-pronged coral
conservation strategy, as explained in Appendix S of the Wake INRMP.
For water quality improvement, in 2016 USAF began implementation of
both the stormwater pollution prevention and invasive plant control
projects. For outreach and education, in 2016 USAF revised the Wake
Island Dive Club Charter to further reduce the potential impacts of
recreational activities on corals. For fisheries management, in 2017
USAF updated its fishing rules, which are part of the Wake Island
Operating Guidance (PSRC 2017) to prohibit the use of (1) cast nets on
the exterior of the atoll, (2) anchoring on coral reef habitat, and (3)
and trolling over coral reef habitat. For physical DoD presence on Wake
Atoll, in 2016 USAF funded and provided logistical support for a FWS
coral survey that documented two ESA-listed corals on the atoll for the
first time.
(3) History of Strong Conservation Work--USAF has a long history of
carrying out successful conservation work on Wake, and often takes the
initiative on conservation efforts whether requested by NMFS or FWS or
not. For example, many of the projects in the new INRMP's coral
conservation strategy had already been started by USAF before corals
were listed in 2014, and were being done to improve conservation of
marine and terrestrial resources on the atoll, regardless of whether
they were required by Federal statute or not. Likewise, in 2016, USAF
funded and supported the FWS coral survey of the atoll, leading to the
discovery of two ESA-listed corals. In addition, USAF has historically
been an excellent conservation partner with NMFS and FWS, supporting a
wide variety of marine and terrestrial conservation projects, and
actively engaging both agencies in the INRMP planning and
implementation process.
The coral conservation component of the Wake INRMP (Appendix S,
Coral Conservation Actions at Wake Atoll; USAF, 2017) is expected to
reduce both direct and indirect impacts to listed corals via
minimization or avoidance of recreational impacts (fishing, diving,
anchoring), and terrestrial impacts (i.e., run-off from land-based
activities; USAF, 2017). Thus, implementation of the Wake INRMP is
likely to provide substantial protection to the essential feature of
coral critical habitat (reproductive, recruitment, growth, and
maturation habitat) within the INRMP marine area from the types of
effects that would be addressed through critical habitat consultation,
thereby benefiting listed corals and their habitat.
4(a)(3) Conclusion
Based on the analyses summarized previously and provided in the
Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019), implementation of the JRM INRMP
(DoN, 2019) and the Wake INRMP (USAF, 2017) both are likely to benefit
[[Page 76277]]
the habitats of ESA-listed coral species within all INRMP marine areas
on Guam, CNMI, and Wake. Thus, the potential proposed coral critical
habitat within the INRMP marine areas on Guam, Tinian, FDM, and Wake
are ineligible for coral critical habitat. The partial overlap of these
INRMP marine areas with potential proposed coral critical habitat are
shown in Figures 21 (Guam) and 22 (Tinian) of the Draft Information
Report (NMFS, 2019). On FDM and Wake, the INRMP marine areas completely
encompass all the potential proposed coral critical habitat, as shown
in Figures 11 (FDM) and 19 (Wake) of the Draft Information Report
(NMFS, 2019).
Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires that we consider the economic
impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of
designating any particular area as critical habitat. Additionally, the
Secretary has the discretion to consider excluding any area from
critical habitat if (s)he determines that the benefits of exclusion
(that is, avoiding some or all of the impacts that would result from
designation) outweigh the benefits of designation based upon the best
scientific and commercial data available. The Secretary may not exclude
an area from designation if exclusion will result in the extinction of
the species. Because the authority to exclude is discretionary,
exclusion is not required for any particular area under any
circumstances.
The ESA provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
NMFS (the Services) with broad discretion in how to consider impacts.
(See, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1625, at 17, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N.
9453, 9467 (1978). Economics and any other relevant impact shall be
considered by the Secretary in setting the limits of critical habitat
for such a species. The Secretary is not required to give economics or
any other relevant impact predominant consideration in his
specification of critical habitat. The consideration and weight given
to any particular impact is completely within the Secretary's
discretion.). Courts have noted the ESA does not contain requirements
for any particular methods or approaches. (See, e.g., Bldg. Indus.
Ass'n of the Bay Area et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce et al., No. 13-
15132 (9th Cir., July 7, 2015), upholding district court's ruling that
the ESA does not require the agency to follow a specific methodology
when designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2)). For this
proposed rule, we followed the same basic approach to describing and
evaluating impacts as we have for several recent critical habitat
rulemakings, as informed by our Policy Regarding Implementation of
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
The following sub-sections describe the economic, national
security, and other relevant impacts that we projected would result
from including the specific areas described previously in these
proposed critical habitat designations. We considered these impacts
when deciding whether to exercise our discretion to propose excluding
particular areas from the designation. Both positive and negative
impacts were identified and considered (these terms are used
interchangeably with benefits and costs, respectively). Impacts were
evaluated in quantitative terms where feasible, but qualitative
appraisals were used where that is more appropriate.
The primary impacts of a critical habitat designation result from
the ESA section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure that
their actions are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat, and that they consult with NMFS in
fulfilling this requirement. Determining these impacts is complicated
by the fact that section 7(a)(2) also requires that Federal agencies
ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species'
continued existence. One incremental impact of designation is the
extent to which Federal agencies modify their proposed actions to
ensure that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the
critical habitat beyond any modifications they would make because of
listing and the jeopardy requirement. When the same modification would
be required due to impacts to both the species and critical habitat,
the impact of the designation is co-extensive with the ESA listing of
the species (i.e., attributable to both the listing of the species and
the designation critical habitat). To the extent possible, our analysis
identified impacts that were incremental to the proposed designations
of critical habitat, meaning those impacts that are over and above
impacts attributable to the species' listing or any other existing
regulatory protections. Relevant, existing regulatory protections
(including the species' listing) are referred to as the ``baseline''
and are also discussed in the following sections.
The following economic and national security impact analyses
describe projected future Federal activities that would trigger section
7 consultation requirements because they may affect the essential
feature, and consequently may result in economic or national security
impacts. Additionally, these analyses describe broad categories of
project modifications that may reduce impacts to the essential feature,
and state whether the modifications are likely to be solely a result of
the critical habitat designation or co-extensive with another
regulation, including the ESA listing of the species. These analyses
incorporate recent guidance provided in the final rule on 4(b)(2)
analyses (81 FR 7413 February 11, 2016).
Economic Impacts
Economic impacts of the critical habitat designations result
through implementation of section 7 of the ESA in consultations with
Federal agencies to ensure their proposed actions are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. These economic impacts
may include both administrative and project modification costs.
Economic impacts that may be associated with the conservation benefits
of the designations are described later.
An economic impact analysis was conducted in 2016 on the proposed
coral critical habitat that projected annual economic impacts during
the 10-year period 2016-2025, as described in section 5.1 of the Draft
Information Report. Due to a large number of uncertainties, low-end and
high-end estimates of economic impacts were developed in terms of the
incremental cost of implementing coral critical habitat in addition to
the cost of section 7 consultations without critical habitat. A key
uncertainty in estimating the economic impacts of coral critical
habitat is the lack of critical habitat for any marine species in the
affected areas, which means that the historic record of section 7
consultations in these areas does not provide a good predictor of
either the future number of total consultations, or the proportion of
formal vs. informal consultations resulting from coral critical
habitat. Consequently, there is a very large difference between the
low-end and high-end economic impact estimates. Low-end total
incremental costs resulting from the listed corals' critical habitat
are estimated at just under $350,000 over ten years, with an annualized
cost of approximately $50,000. High-end total incremental costs are
estimated at more than $13 million over 10 years, with an annualized
cost of approximately $1.9 million, although this number is
unrealistic, as explained below (Draft Information Report, section
5.1).
The high-end estimate is 40 times higher than the low-end estimate
primarily because of the assumption that critical habitat would result
in all
[[Page 76278]]
future coral consultations being formal, and that the resulting
biological opinions would require modifications to all activities that
would not be required in the absence of critical habitat. Critical
habitat could only have a high-end level of economic impact if (1) all
managed areas such as navigation channels, harbors, and marinas are
included in critical habitat, as this is where the action areas for
most activities requiring consultation would be located; and (2) the
action areas contain the essential feature but not the listed corals,
so formal consultation would be required solely because of critical
habitat. However, managed areas are not included in the proposed
critical habitat, as explained in the Specific Areas Containing the
Essential Features Within the Geographical Areas Occupied by the
Species section (although they were included in the economic impact
analysis because that analysis began in 2015 before managed areas were
excluded), thereby minimizing incremental impacts. In addition, a
comparison of the projected annual Section 7 formal consultations in
2016-2025 vs. the actual formal consultations that occurred in 2016-
2019 found that projected consultations were three times higher than
actual consultations (NMFS, 2019, section 5.1). Thus, the likely
economic impact of coral critical habitat is likely to be much closer
to the low-end estimate than the high-end estimate.
Many studies describe the economic benefits of corals and coral
reefs, such as fisheries, recreation, protection of coastal areas by
reefs, and many others, as described in Appendix B of the Draft
Information Report (NMFS, 2019). By furthering the conservation of the
habitat of the listed coral species and associated coral reef species,
the critical habitat designations has the potential to contribute to
such economic benefits. The extent of the potential economic benefits
of coral critical habitat depends on the level of additional protection
provided. For example, certain activities such as dredging of
navigation channels permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) may be subject to project modifications to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat. These modifications would provide
better protection of corals and coral reefs that may then provide
economic benefits. Although the proportion of USACE-permitted
activities that would be subject to modifications ranges from zero
(low-end scenario) to approximately 85 percent (high-end scenario), as
described previously, we anticipate the actual economic impacts to be
much closer to the low-end than the high-end scenario, with
corresponding reduction of potential economic benefits. However, we
cannot quantify the anticipated level of economic benefits.
National Security Impacts
When a 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis is undertaken, the Secretaries
are to determine if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion for a particular area. If so, they may exclude that area,
unless they determine that the exclusion will result in the extinction
of the species concerned. When DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency
requests exclusion from critical habitat on the basis of national-
security or homeland security impacts, it must provide a reasonably
specific justification of an incremental impact on national security
that would result from the designation of that specific area as
critical habitat. That justification could include demonstration of
probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing border security, patrols
and surveillance activities, or a delay in training or facility
construction, as a result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
If the agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will
defer to the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, another Federal agency as to:
(1) Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on
other lands or waters, have national security or homeland security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great weight to
national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing the
benefits of exclusion.
Outside of the JRM and Wake INRMP marine areas described in the
4(a)(3) section, four sites were requested for exclusion by DoD or USCG
based on national security impacts, one in Guam and three in CNMI: The
portion of the Navy's Ritidian Point Surface Danger Zone Complex
outside of DoD Submerged Lands on Guam, two USCG anchorages on Tinian,
and a system of six Navy anchorage berths on Saipan. For each of these
four sites, the impacts to national security of designating the site as
critical habitat were weighed against the benefits to the conservation
of listed corals of designating the site as critical habitat. If
impacts to national security outweigh benefits to conservation of the
listed species, the site is excluded from critical habitat. If benefits
to the conservation of the listed species outweigh impacts to national
security, the site is not excluded from critical habitat. The full
analysis of impacts vs. benefits is provided in the Draft Information
Report (NMFS, 2019), and summarized below. The decision to exclude any
sites from a designation of critical habitat is always at the
discretion of NMFS. In no circumstances is an exclusion of any site
required by the ESA (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
For the Navy's Ritidian Point Surface Danger Zone complex, we
conclude that the impacts to national security of including this area
within critical habitat outweigh the conservation benefits of
designation, thus we propose to exclude the site from coral critical
habitat designation. The full rationale for excluding this site is
provided in the Draft Information Report, section 5.2.1. The most
important factors supporting this exclusion are that this area is a
unique and important place for DoD activities, and the consultation
requirements for critical habitat would place new demands on DoD both
in terms of the consultation process as well as potential modifications
to the DoD activities. The benefits of designating this low-use and
remote habitat is reduced somewhat by the protections already afforded
to some of the characteristics of the essential feature, and because
DoD use of this area is likely to discourage other Federal activities
that may otherwise require consultation. While DoD must still ensure
that activities in this area are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed corals, the exclusion of this area means DoD will
not be required to consult to insure that its activities are not likely
to adversely modify habitat or essential features within this area.
Based on our best scientific judgment and acknowledging the small size
of this area, and other safeguards that are in place (e.g., protections
already afforded listed corals under its listing and other regulatory
mechanism), we conclude that exclusion of this area will not result in
the extinction of the species.
For the USCG's Tinian anchorages (i.e., Explosives Anchorages A and
B on Tinian), we conclude that the conservation benefits of designation
outweigh the impacts to national security of including this area within
critical habitat, and therefore the anchorages are not excluded from
coral critical habitat designation. The full rationale for not
excluding this site is provided in the Draft Information Report,
section 5.2.2. The factors
[[Page 76279]]
supporting denial of this exclusion request are that: (1) Coral
critical habitat would not create a new consultation requirement for
USCG at these sites in addition what is already required by the fact
that some corals on Tinian are listed as threatened under the ESA; (2)
even if coral critical habitat would create a new consultation
requirement for USCG at these site, USCG did not provide enough
information to demonstrate how national security would be impacted if
critical habitat is designated in these areas; (3) the majority of the
areas within the Tinian anchorages are already ineligible for critical
habitat due to overlap with the Tinian Marine Lease Area, and most of
the remaining areas of the two anchorages are shallow nearshore areas
that provide no anchorage; (4) the portions of the anchorages that lie
outside of the Tinian Marine Lease Area (i.e., those areas that are
still eligible for coral critical habitat) have no protection other
than EFH; and (5) the portions of the anchorages that lie outside of
the Tinian Marine Lease contain high quality coral habitat.
For the six Navy anchorage berths (L-19, L-32, L-44, L-47, L-62,
and M-16) within the Saipan Military Prepositioned Squadron Anchorages
site, we conclude that the impacts to national security of including
these sites within critical habitat outweigh the conservation benefits
of designation, and thus the six berths are proposed for exclusion from
coral critical habitat designation. The full rationale for proposing to
exclude this site is provided in the Draft Information Report, section
5.2.3. The most important factor supporting this exclusion is that
coral critical habitat would create a new consultation requirement for
the Navy at these sites in addition to what is already required by the
fact that some corals on Saipan are listed as threatened under the ESA.
The subsequent formal consultation would cause project delays and
modifications that would impact the Military Sealift Command's mission,
which is to provide logistics support to distant Navy, USMC, Army, and
Air Force military forces for a wide range of national security related
activities. The circumstances range from a rise in military tensions
with other nations to the ability of the U.S. Government to respond to
attacks on U.S. forces, the territory and people of the United States,
and U.S. allies. The ability of the prepositioning fleet to provide a
response to a threat to the U.S. requires quick transport and delivery
of weapons, fuel, and supplies to U.S. military forces; thus delays and
modifications at this site would result in substantial national
security impacts. Conservation benefits of including the site in
critical habitat could be substantial because the site has high quality
and quantity of the essential feature with high potential to aid in the
conservation of listed corals, for which critical habitat consultation
could provide significant protection. However, no listed corals have
been recorded within any of the six anchorage berths. While DoD must
still insure that activities in this area are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of listed corals, the exclusion of this area
means DoD will not be required to consult to insure that its activities
are not likely to adversely modify habitat or essential features within
this area. Based on our best scientific judgment and acknowledging the
small size of this area, and other safeguards that are in place (e.g.,
protections already afforded listed corals under its listing and other
regulatory mechanism), we conclude that exclusion of this area will not
result in the extinction of the species.
Other Relevant Impacts
We identified three broad categories of other relevant impacts of
this proposed critical habitat: Conservation benefits, both to the
species and to society; impacts on governmental or private entities
that are implementing existing management plans that provide benefits
to the listed species; and educational and awareness benefits.
Conservation Benefits
The primary benefit of critical habitat designation is the
contribution to the conservation and recovery of the seven corals. That
is, in protecting the features essential to the conservation of the
species, critical habitat directly contributes to the conservation and
recovery of the species. This analysis contemplates three broad
categories of benefits of critical habitat designation:
(1) Increased probability of conservation and recovery of the seven
corals: The most direct benefits of the critical habitat designations
stem from the enhanced probability of conservation and recovery of the
seven corals. From an economics perspective, the appropriate measure of
the value of this benefit is people's ``willingness-to-pay'' for the
incremental change. While the existing economics literature is
insufficient to provide a quantitative estimate of the extent to which
people value incremental changes in recovery potential, the literature
does provide evidence that people have a positive preference for listed
species conservation, even beyond any direct (e.g., recreation, such as
viewing the species while snorkeling or diving) or indirect (e.g., reef
fishing that is supported by the presence of healthy reef ecosystems)
use for the species.
(2) Ecosystem service benefits of coral reef conservation, in
general: Overall, coral reef ecosystems, including those comprising
populations of the seven corals, provide important ecosystem services
of value to individuals, communities, and economies. These include
recreational opportunities (and associated tourism spending in the
regional economy), habitat and nursery functions for recreationally and
commercially valuable fish species, shoreline protection in the form of
wave attenuation and reduced beach erosion, and climate stabilization
via carbon sequestration. The total annual economic value of coral
reefs in U.S. Pacific Islands jurisdictions in 2012 has been summarized
as: (1) American Samoa--$12 million/year, (2) Guam--$155 million/year,
and (3) CNMI--$72 million/year (Brander and Van Beukering, 2013).
Efforts to conserve the seven corals also benefit the broader reef
ecosystems, thereby preserving or improving these ecosystem services
and values.
Conservation benefits to each coral in all their specific areas are
expected to result from the designations. Critical habitat most
directly influences the recovery potential of the species and protects
coral reef ecosystem services through its implementation under section
7 of the ESA. That is, these benefits stem from the implementation of
project modifications undertaken to avoid destruction and adverse
modification of critical habitat. Accordingly, critical habitat
designation is most likely to generate the benefits discussed in those
areas expected to be subject to additional recommendations for project
modifications (above and beyond any conservation measures that may be
implemented in the baseline due to the listing status of the species or
for other reasons). In addition, critical habitat designation may
generate ancillary environmental improvements and associated ecosystem
service benefits (i.e., to commercial fishing and recreational
activities) in areas subject to incremental project modifications.
While neither benefit can be directly monetized, existing information
on the value of coral reefs provides an indication of the value placed
on those ecosystems.
(3) Education and Awareness Benefits that May Result from the
Designations: There is the potential for education and awareness
benefits arising from the critical habitat designations. This
[[Page 76280]]
potential stems from two sources: (1) Entities that engage in section 7
consultation and (2) members of the general public interested in coral
conservation. The former potential exists from parties who alter their
activities to benefit the species or essential feature because they
were made aware of the critical habitat designation through the section
7 consultation process. The latter may engage in similar efforts
because they learned of the critical habitat designations through
outreach materials. For example, NMFS has been contacted by diver
groups in the Florida Keys who are specifically seeking the two ESA-
listed Caribbean Acropora corals on dives and report those locations to
NMFS, thus assisting us in planning and implementing coral conservation
and management activities for those listed species. In our experience,
designation raises the public's awareness that there are special
considerations to be taken within the area.
Similarly, state and local governments may be prompted to enact
laws or rules to complement the critical habitat designations and
benefit the listed corals. Those laws would likely result in additional
impacts of the designations. However, we are unable to quantify the
beneficial effects of the awareness gained through, or the secondary
impacts from state and local regulations resulting from the critical
habitat designation.
Impacts to Governmental and Private Entities With Existing Management
Plans Benefitting the Essential Features
Many previous critical habitat impact analyses evaluated the
impacts of the designation on relationships with, or the efforts of,
private and public entities involved in management or conservation
efforts benefiting listed species. These analyses found that the
additional regulatory layer of a designation could negatively impact
the conservation benefits provided to the listed species by existing or
proposed management or conservation plans.
There are a large number of Federal marine protected areas in
American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, and the PRIA where coral critical habitat
is being considered (Draft Information Report, Appendix B). Impacts of
critical habitat designation on the agencies responsible for natural
resource management planning of these areas depend on the type and
number of Section 7 consultations that may result from the designation
in the areas covered by those plans, as well as any potential project
modifications recommended by these consultations. Negative impacts to
these entities could result if the critical habitat designation
interferes with these agencies' ability to provide for the conservation
of the species, or otherwise hampers management of these areas.
Existing or proposed management plans in the marine protected areas and
their associated regulations protect existing coral reef resources, but
they may not specifically protect the substrate and water quality
feature for purposes of increasing listed coral abundance and eventual
recovery.
However, most of these Federal marine protected areas are still
developing management plans, especially the larger ones that include
the most potential coral critical habitat (e.g., the National Marine
Monuments), thus it is not possible to determine at this time if and
how they would be subject to Section 7 consultation due to potential
effects on coral critical habitat. Therefore, it is not possible to
determine at this time if and how the management of Federal marine
protected areas in the Pacific Islands would be impacted by coral
critical habitat.
Discretionary Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
We are not exercising our discretion to consider exclusions based
on economic impacts. As summarized in the Economic Impacts section,
low-end total incremental costs resulting from the listed corals'
critical habitats are estimated at just under $350,000 over 10 years,
with an annualized cost of approximately $50,000. High-end total
incremental costs are estimated at more than $13 million over 10 years,
with an annualized cost of approximately $1.9 million. However, the
likely economic impact of coral critical habitat is likely to be much
closer to the low-end estimate than the high-end estimate.
We are proposing to exclude two particular areas from critical
habitat on the basis of national security impacts: The Navy's Ritidian
Point Surface Danger Zone complex in Guam, and the Navy's six anchorage
berths within the Saipan Military Prepositioned Squadron Anchorages.
For the Ritidian Point Surface Danger Zone complex, as summarized in
the National Security Impacts section, substantial national security
impacts would be expected because consultation requirements for
critical habitat would place new demands on DoD both in terms of the
consultation process as well as potential modifications to the DoD
activities. Conservation benefits are expected to be low because very
few Federal activities are likely to be proposed within this site.
Thus, we conclude that impacts outweigh benefits, and the site is
excluded from proposed critical habitat.
For the Saipan anchorage berths, as summarized in the National
Security Impacts section, substantial national security impacts would
be expected because formal consultation on anchoring would result in
delays or changes to critical DoD activities at the site. Conservation
benefits are expected to be substantial because the site has high
quality and quantity of the essential feature with high potential to
aid in the conservation of listed corals, for which critical habitat
consultation could provide significant protection. In addition, non-DoD
Federal actions may be proposed within the site, and critical habitat
would address a unique management challenge for listed corals at the
site. However, because of the substantial national security impacts, we
conclude that impacts outweigh benefits, thus the site is excluded from
proposed critical habitat.
While at this time we are not proposing to exclude the USCG's
Tinian anchorages (i.e., Explosives Anchorages A and B on Tinian) due
to a lack of information demonstrating how national security would be
impacted if critical habitat is designated in these areas. NMFS will
take comments on and reconsider its decision as it pertains to this
area consistent with the weighing factors, and provide final exclusion
determinations for this request in the final rule.
We are not proposing to exclude any particular area based on other
relevant impacts. Other relevant impacts include conservation benefits
of the designations, both to the species and to society. Because the
feature that forms the basis of the critical habitat designations is
essential to the conservation of the seven threatened corals, the
protection of critical habitat from destruction or adverse modification
may at minimum prevent loss of the benefits currently provided by the
species and their habitat, and may contribute to an increase in the
benefits of these species to society in the future. While we cannot
quantify nor monetize the benefits, we believe they are not negligible
and would be an incremental benefit of these designations.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designations
Critical habitat must be defined by specific limits using reference
points and lines as found on standard topographic maps of the area, and
cannot use ephemeral reference points (50 CFR 424.12(c)). When several
habitats, each satisfying the requirements for designation as critical
[[Page 76281]]
habitat, are located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may
be designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)).
The habitat containing the physical or biological feature that is
essential to the conservation of the seven threatened Indo-Pacific
corals and that may require special management considerations or
protection, is marine habitat of particular depths for each species in
American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, and PRIA. The boundaries of each of the 19
specific areas that were considered for proposed coral critical habitat
were determined by the process described in the Specific Areas section
of the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019) and summarized previously.
Each specific area provides critical habitat for the one to six listed
species known to occur in that area (see Table 1). After applying the
4(a)(3) analysis, the entireties of the FDM and Wake Units were found
to be ineligible for critical habitat, leaving the 17 specific areas
described below. Of those, portions of the Guam and Tinian Units were
also found to be ineligible after applying the 4(a)(3) analysis. In
addition, after applying the 4(b)(2) analysis, one site in the Guam
Unit (the Navy's Ritidian Point Surface Danger Zone complex), and one
site in the Saipan Unit (a group of six Navy berths: L-19, L-32, L-44,
L-47, L-62, and M-16)) were excluded from critical habitat.
Occupied Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions
The 17 units of proposed coral critical habitat are briefly
described below. Detailed descriptions and maps are provided in the
regulatory text:
(1) Tutuila and Offshore Banks: All waters from 0-40 m depth around
Tutuila and Offshore Banks, except the areas specified in section (d)
of the regulatory text below.
(2) Ofu and Olosega: All waters 0-20 m depth around Ofu and Olosega
Islands, except the areas specified in section (d) of the regulatory
text below.
(3) Ta`u: All waters 0-20 m depth around Ta`u Island, except the
areas specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(4) Rose Atoll: All waters 0-20 m depth around Rose Atoll, except
the areas specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(5) Guam: All waters from 0-40 m depth around Guam and Offshore
Banks, except the areas specified in section (d) of the regulatory text
below, and the national security exclusion (Ritidian Point Surface
Danger Zone complex) specified in section (e) of the regulatory text
below.
(6) Rota: All waters 0-20 m depth around Rota Island, except the
areas specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(7) Aguijian: All waters 0-20 m depth around Aguijian Island,
except as specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(8) Tinian and Tatsumi Reef: All waters 0-20 m depth around Tinian
and Tatsumi Reef, except the areas specified in section (d) of the
regulatory text below.
(9) Saipan and Garapan Bank: All waters 0-40 m depth around Saipan
and Garapan Bank, except the areas specified in section (d) of the
regulatory text below, and the national security exclusion (six Navy
berths) specified in section (e) of the regulatory text below.
(10) Anatahan: All waters 0-20 m depth around Anatahan Island,
except as specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(11) Pagan: All waters 0-20 m depth around Pagan Island, except as
specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(12) Maug Islands and Supply Reef: All waters 0-20 m depth around
Maug Islands and Supply Reef, except as specified in section (d) of the
regulatory text below.
(13) Howland Island: All waters 0-10 m depth around Howland Island,
except as specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(14) Palmyra Atoll: All waters 0-20 m depth around Palmyra Atoll,
except the areas specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(15) Kingman Reef: All waters 0-40 m depth around Kingman Reef,
except as specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(16) Johnston Atoll: All waters 0-10 m depth around Johnston Atoll,
except the areas specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
(17) Jarvis Island: All waters 0-10 m depth around Jarvis Island,
except as specified in section (d) of the regulatory text below.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designations
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including
NMFS, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by
the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of any
threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. When a species is listed or critical
habitat is designated, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on any
agency actions to be conducted in an area where the species is present
and that may affect the species or its critical habitat. During the
consultation, NMFS would evaluate the agency action to determine
whether the action may adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat and issue its findings in a biological opinion. If NMFS
concludes in the biological opinion that the agency action would likely
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,
NMFS would also recommend any reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the action. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined in 50 CFR
402.02 as alternative actions identified during formal consultation
that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that would avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies that have
retained discretionary involvement or control over an action, or where
such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law, to
reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances in
which (1) critical habitat is subsequently designated, or (2) new
information or changes to the action may result in effects to critical
habitat not previously considered in the biological opinion.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with NMFS on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may adversely modify
or destroy designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy
proposed critical habitat, respectively.
Activities subject to the ESA section 7 consultation process
include activities on Federal lands or conducted by a Federal agency,
and activities requiring a permit from a Federal agency or some other
Federal action, including funding. In the marine and aquatic
environments, activities subject to the ESA section 7 consultation
process include activities in Federal waters and in state waters that
(1) have the potential to affect listed species or critical habitat,
and (2) are carried out by a Federal agency, need a permit or license
from a Federal agency, or receive funding from a Federal agency. ESA
section 7 consultation would not be required for Federal actions that
do not affect listed species or critical habitat and for actions that
are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out.
[[Page 76282]]
Activities That May Be Affected
Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires that we describe briefly, and
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation to designate critical
habitat, those activities that may adversely modify such habitat or
that may be affected by such designation. As described in our Draft
Information Report, a wide variety of Federal activities may require
ESA section 7 consultation because they may affect the essential
feature of critical habitat. Specific future activities will need to be
evaluated with respect to their potential to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, in addition to their potential to affect and
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. For example,
activities may adversely modify the essential feature by removing or
altering the substrate or reducing water clarity through turbidity.
These activities would require ESA section 7 consultation when they are
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. Private
entities may also be affected by these proposed critical habitat
designations if they are undertaking a project that requires a Federal
permit or receives Federal funding.
Categories of activities that may be affected by the designations
include coastal and in-water construction, channel dredging, beach
nourishment and shoreline protection, water quality management,
protected area management, fishery management, aquaculture, military
activities, shipwreck removal, scientific research and monitoring, and
contaminants regulation. Further information is provided in our Draft
Information Report (NMFS, 2019). Questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat should be directed to us (see ADDRESSES and FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Comments Solicited
We request that interested persons submit comments, information,
and suggestions concerning this proposed rule during the comment period
(see DATES). We are soliciting comments or suggestions from the public,
other concerned governments and agencies, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule,
including any foreseeable economic, national security, or other
relevant impact resulting from the proposed designations. We
specifically are seeking comments on: Areas we are proposing for
exclusion, including but not limited to the types of areas that qualify
as managed area (e.g., areas adjacent to dredged channels, nearshore
placement areas); other areas not included and excluded; the identified
geographic areas and depths occupied by the species; the physical and
biological feature essential to the coral species' conservation and
identification; and the Economic Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (Appendices B and C of the Draft Information
Report; NMFS, 2019) related to the low and high end estimates and any
other costs that may be borne by small businesses directly. You may
submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one
of several methods (see ADDRESSES). Copies of the proposed rule and
supporting documentation are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, at www.regulations.gov, or upon request
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We will consider all comments
pertaining to this designation received during the comment period in
preparing the final rule. Accordingly, the final designation may differ
from this proposal.
Information Quality Act and Peer Review
The data and analyses supporting this proposed action have
undergone a pre-dissemination review and have been determined to be in
compliance with applicable information quality guidelines implementing
the Information Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). On July
1, 1994, a joint USFWS/NMFS policy for peer review was issued stating
that the Services would solicit independent peer review to ensure the
best biological and commercial data is used in the development of
rulemaking actions and recovery plans under the ESA (59 FR 34270). In
addition, on December 16, 2004, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
(Bulletin). The Bulletin was published in the Federal Register on
January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664), and went into effect on June 16, 2005.
The primary purpose of the Bulletin is to improve the quality and
credibility of scientific information disseminated by the Federal
government by requiring peer review of ``influential scientific
information'' and ``highly influential scientific information'' prior
to public dissemination. ``Influential scientific information'' is
defined as ``information the agency reasonably can determine will have
or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public
policies or private sector decisions.'' The Bulletin provides agencies
broad discretion in determining the appropriate process and level of
peer review. Stricter standards were established for the peer review of
``highly influential scientific information,'' defined as information
whose ``dissemination could have a potential impact of more than $500
million in any one year on either the public or private sector or that
the dissemination is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has
significant interagency interest.''
The information in the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019)
supporting this proposed critical habitat rule is considered
influential scientific information and is subject to peer review. To
satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained
independent peer review of the information used to draft this document
and incorporated the peer review comments into this draft prior to
dissemination of this proposed rulemaking. For this action, compliance
with the OMB Peer Review Bulletin satisfies any peer review
requirements under the 1994 joint peer review policy. Comments received
from peer reviewers are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, at www.regulations.gov, or upon request (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Classification
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies must consider the effects of
their actions on constitutionally protected private property rights and
avoid unnecessary takings of property. A taking of property includes
actions that result in physical invasion or occupancy of private
property, and regulations imposed on private property that
substantially affect its value or use. In accordance with E.O. 12630,
this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. A
takings implication assessment is not required.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of
E.O. 12866 review. This proposed rulemaking is expected to be
considered ``regulatory'' under E.O. 13771.
Low-end total incremental costs resulting from the listed corals'
critical habitat are estimated at just under
[[Page 76283]]
$350,000 over ten years, with an annualized cost of approximately
$50,000. High-end total incremental costs are estimated at more than
$13 million over 10 years, with an annualized cost of approximately
$1.9 million (Appendix B of the Draft Information Report; NMFS, 2019).
The high-end estimate is 40 times higher than the low-end estimate
primarily because of the assumption that critical habitat would result
in all future coral consultations being formal, and that the resulting
biological opinions would require modifications to all activities that
would not be required in the absence of critical habitat. Critical
habitat could only have a high-end level of economic impact if (1) all
managed areas such as navigation channels, harbors, and marinas are
included in critical habitat, as this is where the action areas for
most activities requiring consultation would be located; and (2) the
action areas contain the essential feature but not the listed corals,
so formal consultation would be required solely because of critical
habitat. However, managed areas are not included in the proposed
critical habitat, as explained in the Specific Areas Containing the
Essential Features Within the Geographical Areas Occupied by the
Species section, thereby minimizing incremental impacts. In addition, a
comparison of the projected annual Section 7 formal consultations in
2016-2025 vs. the actual formal consultations that occurred in 2016-
2019 found that projected consultations were three times higher than
actual consultations (NMFS, 2019, section 5.1). Thus, the likely
economic impact of coral critical habitat is likely to be much closer
to the low-end estimate than the high-end estimate.
A Draft Economic Report (Appendix B of the Draft Information
Report; NMFS, 2019) and Draft ESA Section 4(b)(2) Report (the 4(b)(2)
section of the Draft Information Report; NMFS, 2019) have been prepared
to support the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and
our consideration of alternatives to this rulemaking. These supporting
documents are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, at www.regulations.gov, or upon request (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
Pursuant to the Executive Order on Federalism, E.O. 13132, we
determined that this proposed rule does not have significant federalism
effects and that a federalism assessment is not required. However, in
keeping with Department of Commerce policies and consistent with ESA
regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(1)(ii), we will request information for
this proposed rule from Territorial resource agencies in American
Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI. The proposed designations may have some
benefit to state and local resource agencies in that the proposed rule
more clearly defines the physical and biological feature essential to
the conservation of the species and the areas on which that feature is
found.
Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use (Executive Order 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking an action expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or regulation that is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. OMB
Guidance on Implementing E.O. 13211 (July 13, 2001) states that
significant adverse effects could include any of the following outcomes
compared to a world without the regulatory action under consideration:
(1) Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels per day;
(2) reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 barrels per day;
(3) reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons per year;
(4) reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 million cubic
feet per year; (5) reductions in electricity production in excess of 1
billion kilowatt-hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of
installed capacity; (6) increases in energy use required by the
regulatory action that exceed any of the thresholds previously
described; (7) increases in the cost of energy production in excess of
one percent; (8) increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess
of one percent; or (9) other similarly adverse outcomes. A regulatory
action could also have significant adverse effects if it (1) adversely
affects in a material way the productivity, competition, or prices in
the energy sector; (2) adversely affects in a material way
productivity, competition or prices within a region; (3) creates a
serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or
planned by another agency regarding energy; or (4) raises novel legal
or policy issues adversely affecting the supply, distribution or use of
energy arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in E.O. 12866 and 13211.
This rule, if finalized, will not have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, we have not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
We prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.). The IRFA analyzes the impacts to those areas
where critical habitat is proposed, and is included as Appendix C of
the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019), which is available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, at www.regulations.gov, or upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The IRFA is summarized
below, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small
entities.
Consultations on in-water and coastal construction and dredging and
disposal (as determined by the 4(b)(2) economic impact analysis in
Appendix B of the draft Information Report) all have the potential to
involve third parties, such as recipients of Clean Water Act section
404 permits. These activities were combined into one broad industry
category that may experience impacts to small entities: In-Water and
Coastal Construction and Dredging. This IRFA relies on the estimated
incremental impacts resulting from the proposed critical habitat
designation, as described in the 4(b)(2) economic impact analysis in
Appendix B of the Draft Information Report (NMFS, 2019). To be
consistent with this analysis, the IRFA provides low-end and high-end
estimates of the impacts to small entities.
The low-end estimate assumes no incremental project modifications
occur because baseline permit conditions and regulations would provide
sufficient protection to avoid adverse modification of critical
habitat. Impacts to small entities would be due solely to the
additional administrative costs of considering the potential for
adverse effects to critical habitat during section 7 consultations. In
addition, the low-end estimate assumes that trends in the frequency of
informal consultations over the next ten years will resemble those of
the past ten years. The high-end estimate of the impacts to small
entities assumes that there will be incremental project modification
costs for future projects related to in-water and coastal construction
and dredging and that all projected future actions will require formal
consultations (Section 6.0 of Appendix B of Draft Information Report;
NMFS, 2019).
[[Page 76284]]
For some projects related to in-water and coastal construction and
dredging most of the administrative costs and project modification
costs will likely either be borne directly by, or passed onto, Federal
agencies. However, in order to present a conservative estimate of the
impacts to small entities, this IRFA assumes that all administrative
and project modification costs are borne by third parties rather than
Federal agencies.
The low-end and high-end estimated impacts to small entities are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix B of Draft Information Report
(NMFS, 2019). Assuming all small entities bear an equal share of costs,
the low-end estimated impacts per small entity per year ranges from
$2,273 to $2,816, and the high-end estimated impacts per small entity
per year ranges from $115,625 to $117,580 in CNMI, Guam, and American
Samoa.
The low-end estimate of the total annualized incremental impacts of
critical habitat designation to small entities across the three areas
is about $39,000. These costs are distributed evenly among the
approximate 16 entities expected to be subject to section 7
consultations each year. Per entity annualized impacts of critical
habitat designation across the three areas are estimated to make up
only 0.05 percent of the average annual revenues for a business engaged
in in-water and coastal construction or dredging. The high-end estimate
of the annualized impacts to small entities across the three areas is
$1,819,000. Per entity annualized impacts of critical habitat
designation across the three areas are estimated to make up 2.4 percent
of annual revenues for each affected small entity.
The high-end estimate is almost certainly an overstatement of the
costs borne by small entities. It is not likely that all projected
future actions will require formal consultations, nor is it likely that
one small entity would bear all the consultation costs. Moreover, the
IRFA conservatively assumes that all administrative and project
modification costs are borne by third parties rather than Federal
agencies. On other hand, the low-end estimate likely overstates the
number of small entities affected and possibly understates the costs
borne by these entities. In other words, the scenarios in the IRFA
present broad ranges of the number of potentially affected entities and
associated revenue effects. The actual number of small entities
affected and revenue effects are not expected to fall at either extreme
end of the continuum. NMFS seeks comments on its analysis presented in
the IRFA related to the low and high end estimates and any other costs
that may be borne by small businesses directly.
Coastal Zone Management Act
We have determined that this action will have no reasonably
foreseeable effects on the enforceable policies of American Samoa,
Guam, and CNMI. Upon publication of this proposed rule, these
determinations will be submitted for review by the responsible
Territorial agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management
Act [16 U.S.C. 1456].
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This proposed rule does not contain any new or revised collection
of information. This rule, if adopted, would not impose recordkeeping
or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
This proposed rule will not produce a Federal mandate. The
designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally-binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or private parties. The only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their
actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7 of the ESA. Non-Federal entities which receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
affected by the designation of critical habitat, but the Federal agency
has the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
We do not anticipate that this rule, if finalized, will
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, a Small
Government Action Plan is not required.
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Executive
Order 13175)
The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal
and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal
governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by,
the Federal Government.
This relationship has given rise to a special Federal trust
responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and obligations of
the United States toward Indian Tribes and with respect to Indian
lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.
Pursuant to these authorities, lands have been retained by Indian
Tribes or have been set aside for tribal use. These lands are managed
by Indian Tribes in accordance with tribal goals and objectives within
the framework of applicable treaties and laws. Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, outlines
the responsibilities of the Federal Government in matters affecting
tribal interests. The proposed critical habitat designations for
threatened Indo-Pacific corals are located in U.S. territories and
therefore do not have tribal implications in accordance with Executive
Order 13175.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, at
www.regulations.gov, or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). In addition, pdf copies of all cited documents are available
upon request from the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office in Honolulu,
HI (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 23
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 226
Endangered and threatened species.
Dated: September 22, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR
parts 223 and 226 as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).
0
2. In Sec. 223.102(e), in the table, under the heading ``Corals''
revise the entries for ``Acropora globiceps'', ``Acropora
jacquelineae'', ``Acropora retusa'', ``Acropora speciosa'', ``Euphyllia
paradivisa'', ``Isopora crateriformis'', and ``Seriatopora aculeata''.
[[Page 76285]]
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous
species.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Citation(s) for Critical ESA
Description of listing habitat rules
Common name Scientific name listed entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coral, [no common name]........ Acropora globiceps Entire species.... 79 FR 53852, Sept. 226.228 NA.
10, 2014..
Coral, [no common name]........ Acropora Entire species.... 79 FR 53852, Sept. 226.228 NA.
jacquelineae. 10, 2014.
* * * * * * *
Coral, [no common name]........ Acropora retusa... Entire species.... 79 FR 53852, Sept. 226.228 NA.
10, 2014.
Coral, [no common name]........ Acropora speciosa. Entire species.... 79 FR 53852, Sept. 226.228 NA.
10, 2014.
Coral, [no common name]........ Euphyllia Entire species.... 79 FR 53852, Sept. 226.228 NA.
paradivisa. 10, 2014.
Coral, [no common name]........ Isopora Entire species.... 79 FR 53852, Sept. 226.228 NA.
crateriformis. 10, 2014.
* * * * * * *
Coral, [no common name]........ Seriatopora Entire species.... 79 FR 53852, Sept. 226.228 NA.
aculeata. 10, 2014.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612; November 20, 1991).
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
0
3. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
0
4. Add Sec. 226.228 to read as follows:
Sec. 226.228 Critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Acropora
jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa,
Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata.
Critical habitat is designated in the following jurisdictions for
the following species as depicted in the maps below and described in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. The maps can be viewed or
obtained with greater resolution (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals) to enable a more precise inspection of
proposed critical habitat for A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae, A. retusa,
A. speciosa, E. paradivisa, I. crateriformis, and S. aculeata.
(a) Critical habitat locations. Critical habitat is designated for
the following species in the following jurisdictions:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State--counties (or other
Species jurisdiction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acropora globiceps..................... American Samoa (AS), Guam (Gu),
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI),
Pacific Remote Island Area
(PRIA).
Acropora jacquelineae.................. AS.
Acropora retusa........................ AS, Gu, CNMI, PRIA.
Acropora speciosa...................... AS, PRIA.
Euphyllia paradivisa................... AS.
Isopora crateriformis.................. AS.
Seriatopora aculeata................... Gu, CNMI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Critical habitat boundaries. Except as noted in paragraphs (d)
and (e) of this section, critical habitat for the seven species in the
17 units includes the following areas:
(1) Tutuila and Offshore Banks: All waters from 0-40 m depth around
Tutuila and Offshore Banks, except the areas specified in paragraph (d)
of this section.
(2) Ofu and Olosega: All waters 0-20 m depth around Ofu and Olosega
Islands, except the areas specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(3) Ta`u: All waters 0-20 m depth around Ta`u Island, except the
areas specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(4) Rose Atoll: All waters 0-20 m depth around Rose Atoll, except
the areas specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(5) Guam: All waters from 0-40 m depth around Guam and Offshore
Banks, except the areas specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and
the national security exclusion (the Navy's Ritidian Point Surface
Danger Zone complex) specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(6) Rota: All waters 0-20 m depth around Rota Island, except the
areas specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(7) Aguijian: All waters 0-20 m depth around Aguijian Island,
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(8) Tinian and Tatsumi Reef: All waters 0-20 m depth around Tinian
and Tatsumi Reef, except the areas specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(9) Saipan and Garapan Bank: All waters 0-40 m depth around Saipan
and Garapan Bank, except the areas specified in paragraph (d) of this
section, and the national security exclusion (six Navy berths)
specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(10) Anatahan: All waters 0-20 m depth around Anatahan Island,
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
[[Page 76286]]
(11) Pagan: All waters 0-20 m depth around Pagan Island, except as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(12) Maug Islands and Supply Reef: All waters 0-20 m depth around
Maug Islands and Supply Reef, except as specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(13) Howland Island: All waters 0-10 m depth around Howland Island,
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(14) Palmyra Atoll: All waters 0-20 m depth around Palmyra Atoll,
except the areas specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(15) Kingman Reef: All waters 0-40 m depth around Kingman Reef,
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(16) Johnston Atoll: All waters 0-10 m depth around Johnston Atoll,
except the areas specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(17) Jarvis Island: All waters 0-10 m depth around Jarvis Island,
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(18) Maps of the 17 units where critical habitat is proposed are
provided below (all of Wake Atoll and Farallon de Medinilla are
ineligible for critical habitat because of 4(a)(3)).
(c) Essential feature. The feature essential to the conservation of
A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae, A. retusa, A. speciosa, E. paradivisa,
I. crateriformis, and S. aculeata is: Reproductive, recruitment,
growth, and maturation habitat. Sites that support the normal function
of all life stages of the corals are natural, consolidated hard
substrate or dead coral skeleton free of algae and sediment at the
appropriate scale at the point of larval settlement or fragment
reattachment, and the associated water column. Several attributes of
these sites determine the quality of the area and influence the value
of the associated feature to the conservation of the species:
(1) Substrate with presence of crevices and holes that provide
cryptic habitat, the presence of microbial biofilms, or presence of
crustose coralline algae;
(2) Reefscape with no more than a thin veneer of sediment and low
occupancy by fleshy and turf macroalgae;
(3) Marine water with levels of temperature, aragonite saturation,
nutrients, and water clarity that have been observed to support any
demographic function; and
(4) Marine water with levels of anthropogenically-introduced (from
humans) chemical contaminants that do not preclude or inhibit any
demographic function.
(d) Areas not included in critical habitat. Critical habitat does
not include the following particular areas where they overlap with the
areas described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section:
(1) Pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B), all areas subject to the
2017 Wake Island and 2019 Joint Region Marianas Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plans.
(2) Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i)(I), areas where the
essential feature does not occur;
(3) Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i)(I), all managed areas that
may contain natural hard substrate but do not provide the quality of
substrate essential for the conservation of threatened corals. Managed
areas that do not provide the quality of substrate essential for the
conservation of the seven Indo-Pacific corals are defined as particular
areas whose consistently disturbed nature renders them poor habitat for
coral growth and survival over time. These managed areas include
specific areas where the substrate has been disturbed by planned
management authorized by local, territorial, state, or Federal
governmental entities at the time of critical habitat designation, and
will continue to be periodically disturbed by such management. Examples
include, but are not necessarily limited to, dredged navigation
channels, shipping basins, vessel berths, and active anchorages;
(4) Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), artificial substrates
including but not limited to: Fixed and floating structures, such as
aids-to-navigation (AToNs), seawalls, wharves, boat ramps, fishpond
walls, pipes, submarine cables, wrecks, mooring balls, docks,
aquaculture cages;
(5) Areas not included in critical habitat on Tutuila.
(i) Critical habitat does not include two areas where the essential
feature does not occur: Inner Pago Pago Harbor: West of line between
Nuutatai Point (-14.276621, -170.680441) and Trading Point (-14.270756,
-170.684961) on Map 10 of NOAA Chart 83484; and Pala Lagoon: West of
line between Coconut Point (-14.322021, -170.702835) and the airport
tarmac (-14.324714, -170.699535).
(ii) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: USACE-managed small boat harbors, basins, and
navigation channels (areas within ``Federal Project Limits'' indicated
in Hydrographic Surveys for Aunu'u and Auasi Small Boat Harbors on
USACE Honolulu District Civil Works' website); the seawall breakwaters,
and areas lying between the ``Federal Project Limits'' and seawall
breakwaters; all other harbors, navigation channels, turning basins,
and berthing areas that are periodically dredged or maintained; all
seawall breakwaters, areas lying between the managed areas and seawall
breakwaters, and a 25 m radius of substrate around each of the AToN
bases.
(iii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: The 11 USCG-managed fixed and floating
AToNs, USACE-managed seawalls (Afono, Aoa, Lepua, Masefau, Matafao,
Paloa, Vatia, Pago Pago to Nuuuli, and Pago Pago Airport Shore
Protection and Beach Erosion Control Projects, as described on USACE
Honolulu District Civil Works' website); and all other AToNs, seawalls,
wharves, docks, boat ramps, moorings, pipes, wrecks, and other
artificial structures.
(6) Areas not included in critical habitat on Ofu and Oloseg.
(i) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: The USACE-managed Ofu Small Boat Harbor and navigation
channel (areas within ``Federal Project Limits'' indicated in
Hydrographic Surveys for the Ofu Small Boat Harbor on USACE Honolulu
District Civil Works' website); the seawall breakwaters, areas lying
between the Federal Project Limits and seawall breakwaters, and a 25 m
radius of substrate around each of the AToN bases.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: The two USCG-managed fixed and floating
AToNs, USACE-managed Ofu Airstrip Shore Protection Project, as
described on USACE Honolulu District Civil Works' website; and all
other AToNs, seawalls, wharves, docks, boat ramps, moorings, pipes,
wrecks, and other artificial structures.
(7) Areas not included in critical habitat on Ta`u.
(i) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: The USACE-managed Ta'u Small Boat Harbor and navigation
channel (areas within ``Federal Project Limits'' indicated in
Hydrographic Surveys for Ta'u Small Boat Harbor on USACE Honolulu
District Civil Works' website); the seawall breakwaters, areas lying
between the Federal Project Limits and seawall breakwaters, and a 25 m
radius of substrate around each of the AToN bases.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates
including but not limited to: The four USCG-managed fixed and floating
AToNs, all other AToNs, seawalls, wharves, docks, boat
[[Page 76287]]
ramps, moorings, pipes, wrecks, and other artificial structures.
(8) Areas not included in critical habitat on Rose Atoll.
(i) Critical habitat does not include the lagoon because it lacks
the essential feature.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include any managed areas or
artificial substrates.
(9) Areas not included in critical habitat on Guam.
(i) Critical habitat does not include three INRMP marine areas:
(A) NBG Main Base Submerged Lands;
(B) NBG TS Submerged Lands; and
(C) AAFB Submerged Lands.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: The Guam Port Authority harbors, basins, and navigation
channels; Navy-managed Apra Harbor basins, and navigation channels, and
the seawall breakwaters; USACE-managed small boat harbors, basins, and
navigation channels (areas within ``Federal Project Limits'' indicated
in Hydrographic Surveys for Agat and Agana Small Boat Harbors on USACE
Honolulu District Civil Works' website); the seawall breakwaters, and
areas lying between the Federal Project Limits and seawall breakwaters;
all other channels, turning basins, and berthing areas that are
periodically dredged or maintained, and 25 m radius of substrate around
each of the AToN bases.
(iii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: The USCG-managed 32 fixed and floating
AToNs; USACE-managed seawalls (Asquiroga Bay Shoreline Protection
Project and marine components of the Namo River Flood Control project,
as described on USACE Honolulu District Civil Works' website);
Territory-managed boat ramps, including at Agana, Merizo, Seaplane Ramp
in Apra Harbor, Umatac, and Agat; all other AToNs, seawalls, wharves,
docks, boat ramps, moorings, pipes, wrecks, and other artificial
structures.
(10) Areas not included in critical habitat on Rota.
(i) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: The USACE-managed Rota Harbor and navigation channel
(areas within ``Federal Project Limits'' indicated in Hydrographic
Surveys for the Rota Harbor on USACE Honolulu District Civil Works'
website); the seawall breakwaters, areas lying between the Federal
Project Limits and seawall breakwaters, and a 25 m radius of substrate
around each of the AToN bases.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: The two USCG-managed fixed AToNs; the
Territory-managed boat ramp at Rota Harbor; all other AToNs, seawalls,
wharves, docks, boat ramps, moorings, pipes, wrecks, and other
artificial structures.
(11) Critical habitat does not include any managed areas or
artificial substrates on Aguijian.
(12) Areas not included in critical habitat on Tinian and Tatsumi
Reef.
(i) Critical habitat does not include the Tinian MLA Submerged
Lands.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: Tinian Harbor and navigation channel as shown on NOAA
Navigation Chart 81067, the seawall breakwater, and a 25 m radius of
substrate around each of the AToN bases.
(iii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: The six USCG-managed fixed AToNs, the
Territory-managed boat ramp at Tinian Harbor, all other AToNs,
seawalls, wharves, docks, boat ramps, moorings, pipes, wrecks, and
other artificial structures.
(13) Areas not included in critical habitat on Saipan and Garapan
Bank.
(i) Critical habitat does not include the Commonwealth Ports
Authority harbors, basins, and navigation channels, their seawall
breakwaters; all other channels, turning basins, berthing areas that
are periodically dredged or maintained, and a 25 m radius of substrate
around each of the AToN bases.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: The 15 USCG-managed fixed AToNs,
Territory-managed boat ramps at Smiling Cove (Garapan), Sugar Dock
(Chalan Kanoa), Tanapag, Fishing Base (Garapan), and Lower Base
(Tanapag); and all other AToNs, seawalls, wharves, docks, boat ramps,
moorings, pipes, wrecks, and other artificial structures.
(14) Critical habitat does not include any managed areas or
artificial substrates on Anatahan, Pagan, Maug Islands and Supply Reef,
or Howland Island.
(18) Areas not included in critical habitat on Palmyra Atoll.
(i) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: The main channel into the lagoon, dredged area in the
central lagoon, and other channels and areas that are periodically
dredged or maintained.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: Seawalls, wharves, docks, boat ramps,
moorings, pipes, wrecks, and other artificial structures.
(16) Critical habitat does not include any managed areas or
artificial substrates on Kingman Reef.
(17) Areas not included in critical habitat on Johnston Atoll.
(i) Critical habitat does not include managed areas, including but
not limited to: The main channel around Johnston Island, and other
dredged channels and areas.
(ii) Critical habitat does not include artificial substrates,
including but not limited to: Seawalls, wharves, docks, boat ramps,
moorings, pipes, wrecks, and other structures.
(18) Critical habitat does not include managed areas or artificial
substrates Jarvis Island.
(e) Areas excluded from critical habitat. Pursuant to ESA section
4(b)(2), the following areas are excluded from critical habitat:
(1) On Guam, the marine component of the Navy's complex of
overlying Surface Danger Zones off of Ritidian Point, delineated from
point 144[deg]51'18'' W, 13[deg]39'5'' S on the shoreline to point
144[deg]51'27'' W, 13[deg]39'34'' S at 40 m depth, then along the 40 m
depth contour to point 144[deg]53'1'' W, 13[deg]39'8'' S, then to point
144[deg]52'49'' W, 13[deg]38'38'' S on the shoreline, then along the
shoreline back to the original point of 144[deg]51'18'' W,
13[deg]39'5'' S on the shoreline.
(2) On Saipan, Naval anchorage berths off the west coast known as
L-62 (circle with radius approximately 366 m around center point
15[deg]11'4.9194'' N 145[deg]39'41.7594'' E), L-32 (circle with radius
approximately 366 m around center point 15[deg]12'13.6794'' N
145[deg]41'33.3594'' E), L-44 (circle with radius approximately 366 m
around center point 15[deg]11'40.1994'' N 145[deg]40'37.5594'' E), L-47
(circle with radius approximately 366 m around center point
15[deg]11'27.2394'' N 145[deg]41'30.1194'' E), L-19 (circle with radius
approximately 366 m around center point 15[deg]12'53.64'' N
145[deg]40'53.3994'' E), and M-16 (circle with radius approximately 488
m around center point 15[deg]12'36'' N 145[deg]39'34.9194'' E).
(f) Critical habitat maps. Maps of the 17 units of proposed Indo-
Pacific coral critical habitat.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 76288]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.025
[[Page 76289]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.027
[[Page 76290]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.028
[[Page 76291]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.030
[[Page 76292]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.031
[[Page 76293]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.033
[[Page 76294]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.034
[[Page 76295]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.035
[[Page 76296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.036
[[Page 76297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.038
[[Page 76298]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.039
[[Page 76299]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.040
[FR Doc. 2020-21226 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C